blandy

If you've got a 12" er you only need to go at 33 rpm

Open Office (and Libre Office which is another alternative, and arguably better IMO) work with excel and word files etc. fine - you can convert them to open format, but you don't have to. You don't have to keep the Microsoft programme(s). You can uninstall them via "add or remove programmes" in the control panel - hit the windows key and type "remove" and the drop down will show that option and then you can click it and pick what you want to bin off.

200 day streak over Wordle 1,010 X/6*

It is, yes. I agree. I guess the problem is that if the state runs it all, then the department for water might well get its budget cut, because austerity, or because the NHS or education or whatever is deemed more politically necessary. I mean there were nationwide hose pipe bans and stuff in the 1970s and a big kerfuffle about water pipes leaking and so on. Whichever model of ownership there is, the problem is ineffective control and regulation.

Planted out some broad bean seeds today, put other bean and chilli and tomato seeds into windowsill pots, cut back some shrubs and bushes and the front garden looks kind of threadbare compared to its previous jungle self. Hopefully the bushes recover, but if not the veg can go where they are/were. No idea if any of the seeds will grow, they’re just saved ones from eating stuff. Not got any spuds, though. Bit of an oversight.

In the future, water will be the cause of wars. Scaling that conflict back, Wales, say, might decide it needs to stop sending water to neighbouring places, because needs the water there for locals. Or take any region and similar circs. So leaving planning and responsibility to local companies or authorities isn’t an answer, though they surely need to be involved?

Ta. Presumably to housing developers. Presumably housing shortages are something of a long standing problem? I’m not defending it, by the way. Just wondering if the interlinked complexity of different issues isn’t more complex than a headline or a tweet. It seems like by being laisse faire government has allowed long term planning and so on to just be neglected and not even understood or considered. The network, and it is a network isn’t just a “local” thing. Dryer places get water from wetter ones and stuff. So as you’ve posted before, Wales sells water to Merseyside or wherever. The South east gets water from the midlands or East Anglia or wherever. So while the network is joined up, at least to a degree, it looks like the national uk thinking isn’t.

Genuine question. Is it down to water companies to determine future growth in water needs, assess sites for reservoir suitability and apply for permission to build them? I’ve no quibble with them being profiteering, polluting scumbags, but didn’t know it was their job to plan for this stuff.

Swapped my starter, seeing as yesterday’s word was so close to it. Didn’t help much. Wordle 1,009 5/6*

I doubt he’ll get a pardon.

And some pensioners have paid in way more than they’re ever taking out. The state pension is, compared to other countries in the EU etc. pretty woeful. I agree the political will to make changes isn’t there and it’s possible that one day the changes necessary may eventually be made, or partially made, but I’d wager that at the point they do it, if they do, the accumulated “stock” for younger individuals will not be taken from them, but a new level of annual increase will be set without the triple lock. They won’t lose what they have already gained to that point. Taking the example of more recent changes, they been around increasing the age you get it. For women it went to 65 from 60, then for people my age it went from 65 to 67 and I think it’s gone up another year since then. But the level of weekly payments accumulates each year and the young benefit the most from that (though they obviously don’t see that until many years time). Further, younger people are paying less, typically, because they generally earn less at the start of their lives (and nothing if they’re kids). And then again they also benefit the most over time, assuming the Tory NI rate cut endures for any length of time. Its a rare example of something that counter-intuitively actually benefits the young the most, while also being of genuine help to all the pensioners with little or no other pension provision, many in poverty.

The people who will benefit the most from the triple lock are those furthest from taking their pension. This assumes that the state pension isn’t cancelled, but it’s compounding of increases, like with interest on a multi year savings account.

Strewth Wordle 1,008 3/6*

Too weak to know otherwise.

Blatant PFK, there. Well done. I’m not giving you one, though.

That was for DRM reasons by the record companies, not Apple reasons. I agree broadly with the rest of your post though. Apple take advantage of their strength for purely commercial reasons (as do others, like google, Amazon etc.). They each do it in different ways and with different “justifications”, only a few of which seem to have any degree of validity to me.

You're welcome. Your comment on the ASA is fair and a good one. Is an ad fair honest and decent? kind of thing - I'd have no problem if the PL (or the Gov't) appointed someone(s) to adjudicated similarly on club ownership. It wouldn't need to be a permanent role - just someone appointed to address a specific case as it arose. The criteria would need to be set by the PL or if it's a gov't role, by the Gov't. My fundamental concern over a Gov't regulator is that when the remit is wide, and unclear - and in this case it's a sort of "something must be done and a regulator is a "something", therefore that's a solution". Well, no, it's not a solution. It's an idea. Proposals were released by the Gov't to cover what this regulator would potentially have powers to do. When it comes to the myriad of wider issues, most of them I don't think are or ought to be in the purview of the government. I accept that "Football" (the current authorities and clubs) are not doing a good job of managing all these issues in many cases. It's one of those things where (IMO) mood music is saying "we need a regulator", but my suspicion is that Politics will interfere with any "independent" regulator - appointees will be political favourites, prone to do the bidding of a Tory or Labour leader or Government, and paid a fat fee for being there.

Perhaps my view isn’t clear. I do not believe that the system as it is now (unhindered by anything other than the most token gestures) is good. That’s the first thing. The second thing is that I also do not believe that politicians are best placed to (in the form of appointing a regulator, with a remit set by them) to fix the problems. The third thing is that it’s not incumbent on me to have some “miracle solution”. There isn’t one. However, that also doesn’t mean that I/we collectively as football supporters can’t or don’t see improvements that need to be made. There’s also a huge difference between (say) water or energy or transport, which 10s of millions of people utterly depend upon to exist and a bunch of entertainment providers who organise and play competitive professional football. The population of the country need, via their government representatives, to control the behaviour of the businesses that provide our water via a monopoly. I would like to see, for example, much stricter tests for owners. I would like to see limits on ticket prices….all kinds of stuff. After Hillsborough all seater stadia were brought in. It didn’t require a regulator. Some nations ban gambling or tobacco or alcohol sponsorship on shirts etc. it didn’t require a regulator. There are not only 2 options - a government regulator or no regulator. Being extremely unconvinced that a permanent government regulator is the right path does not mean I have to propose a miracle solution. I would like to see law that details who can legally own clubs, as is the case with certain other nationally important industries like defence etc. TV ads for fags are banned by law. If gambling is one of the things needed to be rid of, then do the same for football shirt sponsors and so on. I think they already did that for tabs and booze, for example.

Wordle 1,007 4/6* pretty much a snap with @villan95

I think we agree on the problem. My concern is based around a question, which is “can you confidently give me an example of any government regulator that’s done or is doing a good job?”

Arsenal's at 4:30 on Sunday 14th. The Bournemouth game, though you're right, it's gonna be on the 21st, not 20th, because we play Lille on the Thursday before, so Bournemouth fans can't arrange their travel, perhaps. It'll be a 2pm kick off, I'd imagine, but they should have set it out by now. It's not on telly. Yes that kind of disregard for fans is galling and wrong. Personally I'm not at all in favour of a government regulator, I think it's a really bad idea. Yes there's a problem. No the solution is not a government regulator, IMO.

My experience is military aircraft manufacturing not civil, but anyway I’m unaware of the fitting of bolts being monitored in the way you describe for whole aircraft. I don’t think in this case incorrect torque specification, or component failure, or incorrect or inadequate bolt specification or quality is (from what we know) a credible cause of the door failure. If the parts had failed, given this incident occurred months ago, there would have been aircraft grounded until the bolts in all of them had been replaced. For a few years (admittedly a long while ago now) I ran a team whose whole job was monitoring and investigating all failures (including human error) across several different aircraft build programmes, mainly Typhoon, and for all sorts of reasons this one absolutely shouts “human error” ( based on available reporting and the absence of any mention of component failure). If it had been component related a whole ton of stuff would have happened by now and been reported, given the scrutiny on Boeing following the crashes.

I disagree. Sunderland (when they were decent) and Spurs new grounds are much better for atmosphere than their old grounds. Bolton no change, Arsenal no change, Man City no change at worst. In terms of Villa and any new ground, I’d imagine that like with the Spurs ground, design for good acoustics would be part of the plan.

That van’s a Commer isn’t it?

The process, whether controlled by systems or by humans is essentially the same. If someone inputs that they have done the task and then a supervisor inputs that they have checked, the system says “ok”. In terms of FMECA/FMEA and supporting FTA and hazard analysis it would (in aerospace) be something like this: A top level catastrophic hazard of “loss of structural integrity”. Below that, all possible contributing hazards, from bird strikes, to fatigue, to engine break up and debris penetrating the structure, and (for doors and panels) failure or loss of fastenings. In terms of this door panel it was (or should have been) held in place by 4 bolts, plus n rivets. Failure/loss of (say) 1 bolt would have been determined at the design stage not to cause loss of the door, maybe also 2 bolts, ditto, so the engineering and design mandates 4 bolts to make the hazard of loss of door ALARP. In addition, build/ maintenance processes would clearly require the 4 bolts to be fitted correctly and to be of the required quality and integrity and strength. Boeing’s license to build and certify aircraft, as granted by the FAA, would be predicated on production processes which would include SQEP fitters, inspectors, QC, QA etc and build instructions and records being clear, correct and unambiguous. Tool control, parts control…all kinds. Those are and were almost certainly all in place. The difficulty arises because 2 people (at least) failed to do what they were required to do, and very possibly more than two people. We don’t know why they didn’t. That’s what needs resolving. Its likely that part of the reason they didn’t is the too linked/non independent oversight of Boeing which the FAA is supposed to have, but which US Politics has at best allowed to wither and at worst has actively enabled/ encouraged in the name of US Corporate interest. This has led to Boeing becoming lax in managing safety, as recent incidents have shown. So on one level it’s a US Government creeping failure and on another it’s disgruntled/ tired / rushed technicians failing to do their job. It’s not a pattern failure like defective batch of bolts, it’s not a design or engineering failure, like specifying low quality components or not requiring enough bolts to hold the panel in place. It’s a manufacturing/ maintenance failure caused by willful or accidental personnel (fitter) error, compounded by a second personnel error (inspection).