TheDon

Lock them up for what exactly?

Only Stephen Timms, shadow welfare minister said in January that benefits should rise with inflation.

Benefits are currently set at "the amount the law says you need to live on". If the cost of living goes up, then by definition benefits have to rise at the same rate. What you need to live hasn't changed, yet the cost of it has rose.

Would hope that they port the messaging infrastructure from Palm/WebOS to Android... IIRC (though I can't find the post, because search is b0rked) those who picked up touchpads before putting ICS on them agreed that the messaging was the best they'd seen.

One place to look for all messages is the way it should be.

Software Developer. I write software for housing associations, mainly EDRMS and CRM systems.

I did Nazi that coming! *ba dum tsssshhh*

 

Nope? Nobody?... Hello?

Dish is absolutely buried in the snow.... strangely enough it worked fine this morning after the snow had stopped falling (suspect that the blowing caused enough drifting to bury the snow, that or some slid off of higher roofs as the sun melted some of the snow.

I'll see if I can blow the dust off my pokerstars account and join in.

Has anyone who deposited 20 had their bonus yet?

Usually you have to play to get the bonus, so much is released for each £x you play.

I can't imagine anyone paying for an OS. Mind boggling.

Why?

Software takes time to develop. Why would you not pay for that?

Why would you pay for something when you can something at least as good for free?

The time spent on something is absolutely irrelevant to its value.

I don't see how it's "mind boggling" that someone would pay for something that has very real costs associated with it.

Ubuntu after all might be "free", but development on it is certainly paid for by someone (Canonical, who are chasing the Red Hat model of support based income).

I work as a software developer, and I also contribute to a couple of open source products. But the only reason I can do that is because someone is paying me to develop software that people pay for.

FOSS is a nice idea, but it's also an unsustainable one if no one is paying for any software. Someone has to be paying for the skills needed to write software somewhere down the line, else no one with those skills is going to exist. Most open source developers are in the same boat as me, their well paying day jobs let them pursue their hobbies in their free time.

Hakuna Matata

I can't imagine anyone paying for an OS. Mind boggling.

Software takes time to develop. Why would you not pay for that?

My S3 has hairline cracks in several places around the case now, googling it looks like it's a common problem... might send it back to be repaired then sell it and get an N4.

Yes, but the point is that is a bullshit reason.

It's not even the way she says it (which is annoying in itself). It's that what she's saying it's completely pointless to anyone with a brain. 'See you later, what does that even mean?'. It means exactly what it sounds like it means.

**** oooooooofffffffffff.

The thing is though there's a lot of truth in what people say.

You can see the moment in a game when you know Murray won't win, and it long before he's beaten.

He's got better at dealing with it than he used to be, but it's still there.

Novak going "up a gear" didn't make Murray serve a double fault. Murray letting stupid shit distract him and take his mind off the game did.

Murray is doing his usual "lose a tight set, go on to self destruct" thing.

The guy has no mental toughness at all.

Absolutely infuriating bullshit (with all due respect). If I OWN the pavement outside my house THEN it's my duty. If I don't own it then it's the duty of whoever DOES own it; usually the council.

People usually have absolutely zero right to do anything to the pavement outside their house (modify etc), so they sure as **** should not be made responsible for maintaining something they've no right to. Do not make it mandatory and legal for the onus to be on someone to do something TO something they DON'T OWN. If someone WANTS to do it, then fine. But the notion that they should be somehow held accountable for a piece of property that they have no legal hold over is **** infuriating. Utter madness.

I know which one I'd prefer though as the bill for clearing all the pavements in a decent amount of time wouldn't be cheap.

The paths are literally unwalkable in many places because no one gives a shit as long as the roads are ok.

I'd have thought that they were successfully sued because they didn't do it properly; they did it incompetently or negligently, or they made it worse than it was beforehand.

I can see that taking responsibility for clearing an area for which you would otherwise have no responsibility may make you liable (if you cock up and make it more hazardous, for instance) whereas before, when you weren't responsible for it, you couldn't be liable.

I'd be very doubtful that this can be reversed and interpreted by those with responsibility for a specific area (people, businesses, schools and so on) so that they decide not to do anything, i.e. fail to act reasonably to prevent accidents.

Edit: Surely the Occupiers Liability Act confers upon all of us the duty to do that where we are the occupier (e.g. as TheDon says - your own path on your own property)?

Not a good idea....

 

If you clear a path you can get sued if someone falls. Sounds daft I know but I know Head Teachers who tell their caretakers not to clear paths as by doing so you are taking responsibility and in doing so telling people it is safe.

 

I know it is beyond reason but there you go.

Plus, that's under current law. If it was made so you had to, you couldn't then be sued for doing it.

Incidentally you could currently get sued by someone for not clearing your own path. You have a duty to ensure people on your property are safe, so if the postman takes a slip on your uncleared path he can sue you too (as can anyone else with a reason for visiting your front door).

If everyone would just clear the pavement outside their house it'd all be fine. The roads are fine now, but the pavements are still dire to walk on.

There's some US states were it's a legal requirement to clear the pavement outside your house, we should make it the same here.

Now I know that you are James Allen.   She's replied.

Best red card ever. Amazing.

People who think forums are twitter.

They're not, there's no need for @'s when you can quote. Especially as the quote lets you go back to the original comment.

That's not saying people shouldn't cut down long quotes and avoid quoting the entire thing, but lets not dumb forums down to the level of twitter.

#unreasonablypissedoff

Shaun Teale on Twitter saying "AVFC where's your **** pride?" #nuffsaid

It's in the past.

You know, just how the saying goes, proud history, shite future.

A league two side, over the course of 2 legs, has scored 3 goals against us from corners.

We can't defend against league 2 corners, how is that possible?

I don't agree "Don", the rate of change that has hit the economy due to the changes over the past few years means that your statement re plenty of time is not valid IMO

Sure they are.

When you're talking about HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster the threats to them have been clear for years.

HMV has been at risk every since Play was launched (who funnily enough are now dead as a direct retailer precisely because of Government intervention).

Jessops have been at risk with the switch to digital, no one needs film processing which was a highly profitable part of their operation. They tried to switch to printing digital images, but no one really does that. They all just end up on facebook, or printed at home. They've still had their camera sales, but again the internet has pushed prices down there.

Blockbuster, well, who rents anymore? Netflix, the cheap availability of many dvds, piracy. This was one that was always going to go. Their only chance was to become Netflix rather than be destroyed by it. Blockbuster had the brand name to be the market leader in streaming rentals. They just didn't position themselves for it well enough.

I'm sorry but no amount of repeating "the economy is weak" is going to chance the fact that those 3 were on very very shaky ground, and have been for a while.

You seem to be basing your whole argument on "Internet" vs "High Street" which is not a realistic argument at all. As said evolution rather than Revolution, and to do that changes need to be managed in rather than just letting a whole load of retail outlets go bust and be damned by the consequences. Who is saying that you just need to prop up failing businesses either? but market conditions, something that the Gvmt has a distinct influence over which in turn generates growth and prosperity for the people have to be helped along. Austerity cuts have accelerated the demise of many businesses not least in the High Street. Your views that this may not be a bad thing because you don't like shops has no relevance IMO

No, I'm basing my argument on companies not seeing obvious threats, being all too happy to coast along doing what they've been doing without making changes that could potentially have saved them. The internet just happens to be the biggest enemy of the high street right now.

I don't see how encouraging growth will change anything. If you give people more purchasing power they're not going to rent more dvds at blockbuster, they're not going to buy a few more cds from hmv, they're not going to go get a few photos developed at jessops, because they haven't been doing these things for a fair while now.

The world has changed, and just like how we no longer have a blacksmith fitting horse shoes in every town, a great many people no longer need dvd rentals or film processing.

I am not sure I understand your point about high street stores closing mom and pop stores, because you are seemingly very happy for that to happen. The demise of the High street vs Online shopping to use your argument wont protect small businesses any more. Also as said but not seemingly considered is the circumstances we find ourselves in now re the UK and World economies.

The point is that this isn't new. The high street has been changing since there's been a high street. Businesses come and go, and there's no such thing as being too big to fail. If you don't change and adapt you can see your entire business model eroded out from under you.

Does it suck that people will lose jobs? Sure it does. But lets not pretend that this wouldn't have happened if we weren't in a recession. Maybe they'd have been able to borrow to keep themselves going a bit long (although I doubt it, the banks aren't as short sighted as businesses appear to be), but the inevitable is that these were companies who have been on the way down for a long while.