Yep.
Also while the UK governance structure is crap.
Other EU nations have some of the same issues. (As has briccs nations in the past)
This is more about corperation power. Capatalims control over government is everywhere. But fully embedded in the west.
‘Political malpractice’ sorta describes everything he does.
But, as statements go. It has the same value as suggesting he make his own orange die.
Solving politics is cheap and fast.
Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.
Its not like you came up with a new idea.
You can theoretically. Unfortunately, you are not considering the land difference.
More to the point, the absolute political nightmare of buying and getting permission to use so much land.
It is a nightmare for both. But rare to see the amount of land needed for the power station, have to argue about arable use. Whereas, it’s pretty hard in the UK to locate the solar without others claiming land is lost. Farm land mainly as that is the cheap build option. (pricy land, lower labour).
But even brownfield land. Once you have the area to host something like this. You are usually talking about close to populated areas. And just about every NIMBY crap excuse is thrown up about history or other potential use. Meaning, at best you end up with some huge project that takes decades. With a vague plan to add solar generation to the roof.
Honestly I agree. It should be fucking easy to build these plants. Farming should be updating. And honestly can benefit from well-designed solar if both parties are willing to invest and research.
But we have been seeing these arguments for the last 20 years. And people are arseholes, mostly.
And this is all before you consider the need for storage. Again solvable with hydro etc. Theoretically easy. But more land and way way more politics and time. If hydro the cost goes insane. And the type of land become more politically complex. If battery, you instantly get the comparison of mining and transport costs. So again more insane politics.
If it was. And lets face it in 2024 we have well and trully lost the definition.
Posting false images of people compleatly unrelated to the event. Based entirly on what they look like.
And trying to stir fear and hatred to dismis a political proteat.
Yep hard to call that anything bur terrorism.
Unfortunately, only local auth councillors tend to have any interest in lowering the limit.
Well at least since 1967 when the M1 was first given the perm 70mph limit.
Sounds logical on a just consider it level.
But us old farts know better.
The nation went metric in 1965 joined the EU in 1975.
You know how all road signs are reflective. Well, back then that did not exist. Reflective roadsigns started in the early 1980s.
Add to that, most major roads end up replacing the signs every several years.
And the simple fact is No If in the 80s we decided to double sign (as other nations did. Every nation in the EU did it at some point. France was well before road signs, 1795 I think. But the rest of the EU could not agree on anything before the 1940s. Almost all of them had their own versions of imperial like units divided over regions based on political power.
It was not until the early predecessor to the EU post ww2 that most of Europe changed.
If we started in 1980 by displaying km plus mph on all signs. (Rounded to the nearest unit). The original change would not have cost any more than current spending. Buy now, most major roads would have had many replacements, likely dropping the mph.
We would still see some dual signs in very low use back roads.
But when did you last see a non-reflective sign. Because that is as often as you would see MPH only signs. At 0 extra spending.
Just to be clear. The UK is full metric as far as EU rules are concerned.
Heck, as far as the SI is concerned, so is the US. We both changed in the 70s. SI just required all other units to be defined based on metric. The UK and US do this. And the EU just requires all trade to be available as a metric option.
What you actually use to communicate in nation non-sales is your own business. Heck, we can even sell in your own units as long as we also offer conversions on request. (according to EU. I think the UK required display in metric at some point. )
We and the US are just too stubborn to use the better units.
Grins born 1970 exactly.
So your a young wipper snapper.
Feel free to pass that proffesional opinion on to your significant (or otherwise) other.>
Yes, that can be a grey area, but it would be a start.
Yep lets remember. Under that rule. The NHS bus passes.
Advertising really only has to not be provable false. The ASA has way less power when claims are questionable or down to interpretation.
Does a Mars a day help you work, rest and play. Well, obesity and increased risk of type 2 diabetes would say hell no. If a politician claimed sugar treats helped you work, rest and play. He would be dragged over the coals in the media.
But technically. As a type one diabetic. Without access to sugar (refined carbs) exercise is very able to kill me via hypoglycaemia. And all mammals need energy. So technically it’s true. But full of crap at the same time.
Yeah you may be too young to remember that advert. I have no idea I dont think Ie seen it since the 90s. But it’s still legal today.
I agree. But can see how this will go.
If it gets the votes. (Hard because most have gotten fed up with these things achieving nothing)
Parliment will have a discussion. Argue about how impossible it is to define truth from a government prospective. (IE without looking like censorship)
Then never being it up again.
Unfortunately this is the sort of problem that needs answers before letting government discuss it. And then needs grass roots support to force it forward.
And honestly. I don’t think the UK is capable of that any more. NHS creating and post war social housing was likely the last time we were.
Aren’t pension funds supposed to spread their risks?
Individual funds are yes. But a larger fund can do so more effectively. As having a larger % of one company represents a smaller % of the funds total investment risk. IE the bigger the fund the more it can risk without endangering the whole plan.
As long as it is managed well. And that comes to your second point.
That boils down to there being no real difference. If the gov has control of multiple small funds. They can already make choices based on economy vs long term investment. And if long term comes second. Are failing the pensioners.
Having a bigger fund doesn’t change this. It just allows the investment to be controlled buy one voting fund, giving it more ability to control that company. Again, something that can be used to benefit the pensioners or the economy. Depending on the priorities of the government.
But basically if the gov has access to 3 funds or one big one with the same money. They are just as able to choose how that money is used. One fund just includes options for something closer to national ownership. So more control on how the company makes the same choices.
Shitty government choice is shitty government no matter how the money is devided. Its just one way is more effective no matter what choices they make good or bad.
As labour are continuing tory crap. And have added nothing to it.
How can that be worse vs identicle.
As a potential victim of this shit. Please stop weakening the case with over grandiose claims of crap.
Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.
Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.
It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.
Free hardware is something I’ll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.
Thanks. Makes sense.
Vat meat is likely the long term future. IE lab grown but more efficient.
Vegonism will become more common. But is not going to be 100% or even close in time to have an effect. Or likely ever as that effect is its biggest sell atm.
But lab grown meat can manage and use CO2 where as its hard to do so with live animals.
But arible farming is still a huge user of CO2 and really not being pushed to cha ge rapidly. Cost is still seen as more important then green energy use.
proprietary
Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.
So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.
EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.
Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.
So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.
As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.
The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.
GPL3 has extra restrictions banning patients etc. So yeah a lot of GPL 2 code written by companies that open software but not hardware. Would have legal questions about running with GPL 3
GPL 3 was created to be more restrictive to non-open hardware.
The word restricted in the desc rather than the tittle BANNED.
Indicates it’s not as banned as they want to suggest.
Of course, if it’s really banned then great, it’s well past time. But that switch in wording is carrying a lot of weight.
Wondering if anyone who knows the language/region.
Can confirm the terms they use. Because age of consent when its clear the child is not able to express a chioce or old enouth to understand what they would be agreeing to.
Seems like a western interpretation. Or are the laws there really that hypocritical in their terminology.