|
thespaceinvader posted:Given how loving long modern movies are I am always shocked they don't put in intermissions in order to play more ads and sell more lovely overpriced food and drink. It seems like an exquisitely capitalist thing to do, I'm baffled as to why they haven't. They would sell more refreshments (which have huge margins) but they'd be able to put on less screenings of the film. And there's a lot of pressure from the film companies for cinemas to have as many screenings as possible in a day or else they might not be offered the next release.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Half the Tories want to leave and the other half want to stay. That alone should tell you that we're hosed either way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Sounds like a problem with an individual doctor or clinic overestimating the kid's level of competence, and thus primarily a training issue, but it won't surprise me if someone suggests a legislative solution because that seems to be the answer to everything lately. This is going back a few pages, but who exactly says the doctor was in the wrong here? The Daily Mail? Gilick competency is written in to the law to protect kids who are deemed to be mature enough to understand their own medical conditions. The idea that her condition was close to 'life-threatening' or that she was in any danger from overdosing her anti-acid medication is bullshit invented by the paper. Part of treating Gilick competent children is encouraging them to tell their parents, and that's exactly what this girl did when she felt the time was right. And what did her mother do with this sensitive issue? Sold her story to the loving papers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:What the gently caress, that sounds great, how on earth did this nearly happen? Pension ISAs have some pretty profound drawbacks that make it a good thing they didn't happen. First, it would mean removing up front tax relief on pensions and making withdrawals tax-free to compensate. See at the moment there is still some correlation between the number of pensioners and tax revenue, because they still pay income tax. That helps the government pay some of the cost of dealing with an increasingly elderly population. Pension ISAs would decouple that by giving the government all the money up front, which would be great for Osbourne's deficit targets but very bad in the future when that population retires. Because then they would be paying no tax at all and the government would have blown the income from their pension savings long ago. It's basically a plot by Osbourne to steal from the future. It's also bad for savers because there would be nothing to stop a skint future government from reinstituting a tax on pension withdrawals. Essentially 'double dipping' and taxing you at both ends. It would be the dickest of all dick moves, but who trusts all future governments in their lifetime NOT to take that bait?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Roth IRAs have been a thing in states for years, and now you can get Roth 401(k)s and having them in addition to traditional retirement accounts is a useful thing. Except the pensions ISA scheme would replace traditional pension savings, not complement them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I'm not sure I buy this worry, since pensioners are generally a favoured political class what with turning out to vote and all that. "We need to do this because [strong economy] and to avoid confusion we are protecting all existing pensioners." It wouldn't be that popular, but it would net a fuckload for a future government, and most people understand pensions about as well as they do nuclear fission.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:You can't be surprised. Happily, he will probably be just as useless in this new role. It's not a role. It's a bribe divided into monthly pay-cheques.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Does not compute. We all know money now is better than money later; so how is taxing the pension money later (at probably a lower rate because they're "earning" less) better than just not giving the tax relief now? And it's not that pensioner's wouldn't pay income tax on anything - just not on the pension ISA savings? First you need to be careful not to conflate the two potential changes that were floated. Getting rid of the higher rate tax relief and moving to a flat rate - good. Getting rid of all tax relief and moving to an ISA style system - bad. They were two separate ideas. The idea that money now is better than money later applies to your personal budget, not so much to governments. At the moment pensioners make a tax contribution that is in some way proportionate to the amount of elderly people we have. If Osbourne changed the system he would gain an immediate windfall, which would promptly get spent on deficit reduction to meet his meaningless targets. That money didn't come from nowhere, it came from the future government that now has to look after those elderly people with proportionately less tax income since now half the population is over 60 and there are more people taking from pensions than saving into them. Money now is great if you trust the current government to spend it wisely or put it aside for future costs. Not so much if you think they will fritter it away on tax cuts for the rich and fiscal targets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
peanut- posted:Maybe those of us who see his -39 approval rating and 55% of 2015 Labour voters that say Labour won't win Corbyn as leader and think these are bad signs truly are the deluded ones. Stuff like that matters even less than the voting intention polls, and they are hardly very credible these days either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:let people decide when they want to work and when they want to have time off. You must know this isn't how it works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
So the latest ComRes monthly poll is out! Let's look at the headline figures: CON 38%(-3) LAB 29%(+2) LDEM 7%(-2) UKIP 16%(+1) GRN 4%(+1) Could be worse, considering ComRes always posts the worst figures for Labour out of any major company thanks to new 'socio-economic' weighting. For comparison purposes the non-weighted pure data has Labour on 29% and the Cons on 31%. So the Con lead has apparently shrunk 5 points in the last month, making these the best numbers ComRes has posted for Labour since the last election. In other news, more people think George Osborne is doing a bad job as Chancellor (41%) than a good job (31%), but Cameron & Osborne have a 16 point lead over Corbyn & McDonnell on which pair people would trust to run the country’s economy (45% to 29%). Full tabs here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:e: it's kind of impressive that you linked the full results but couldn't be bothered to look at the huge table on the first page. Sorry, what I meant to say is it has the best numbers from a ComRes online poll since the last election. The polls they do for the mail and others use different methodology (telephone polling) and aren't really directly comparable any more than they are between different polling companies. Like someone else said each poll had its own distinct fingerprint and you are better off comparing like for like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Hedge fund manager pays child support The real story there is that there is no story there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:The future is Kansas. Although I still managed to see some tool on the news claiming that banning handguns after Dunblane probably did nothing to reduce gun crime. I guess the absence of any similar massacres is just coincidence. I really wish the BBC would give up on their idea of 'balance' sometimes. You know, the kind where you can't possibly discuss climate change without cutting away to someone who thinks the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. Not all opinions are worthy of merit, BBC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:They have also released a rather unusual statement about their poll: http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/media-center/guardian-poll-march-2016 Isn't it breaking impartiality a bit to release a statement rubbishing the results of your own poll when it shows Labour closing the gap?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
pointsofdata posted:it's out of line with other recent polls so they are probably just covering their arses in case it doesn't hold up Holds up against what? Is someone going to sue them if their next poll is different?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:No. How could a comment on the validity of sampling methods and statistical analysis possibly be partisan? In any event, they release brief analyses of their results every time they publish a poll, and have been making a lot of the same points (their polls consistently oversample people who voted Labour in 2015, and their weighting scheme isn't enough to compensate for this sampling error) for some time. They don't know that their polls 'consistently' oversample people who vote Labour. They know that they oversampled them during the last general election. That's the problem with running a monthly poll that you can only check the accuracy of once every five years. And how can people lose confidence in their company based on the results of voting intention polls? It's not like there is going to be a general election any time soon for them to compare the results. They could say anything at this point and no-one will ever know whether it's remotely accurate or not. Still seems to me that their poll showed Labour on equal footing when 'everyone knows' that Labour are poo poo and Corbyn in unelectable. Hence they quickly distance themselves from the result and twist the
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Yes they do, because they ask each respondent how they voted in 2015. In this poll, and in seven out of the last ten that they performed, the number of people who say they voted Labour in 2015 was greater than the number who say they voted Tory even though the Tories won more votes in the actual election. Maybe the Tories are secretly rigging the election and that's why you can never identify the people who voted for them. More seriously, as you say the same thing has happened in seven out of their last ten polls and I don't remember them calling it 'methodologically perturbing' each time. They even say that the number of 2015 Tories who now say they would vote Labour is 'unfortunate' because it negates the impact of some of their counter-weighting. How can people changing the party they vote for be 'unfortunate' in a voting intention poll? If people who voted Tory in 2015 now say they will vote Labour how do you possibly spin that any other way than increasing support for Labour? They even say that under 'normal circumstances' a collapse in Tory support would be expected. But apparently it isn't under these circumstances, just because. Regardless, it's the second poll so far that shows a big drop in Tory support which is ace. It's just mildly annoying that the whole tone of the press release seems to ooze 'Labour can't possibly be doing this well, everyone knows that'. jabby fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:but forcing things that do not need an earthing pin to have one just to open the shutters is up there too. Why? It seems like a reasonable safety feature. Do people really want to get rid of that pin?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think originally the commonplace socket type was not intended for low power applications, instead you would use a two pin unearthed socket which ran at a much lower voltage. I was actually talking about using the earth pin to open the covers over the live and neutral, to prevent kids sticking things in there. You can get rid of the earth and have slightly smaller plugs, but you would lose that feature.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
So William Hague has taken to the Telegraph and basically admitted more budget cuts make no goddamn sense but we should do them anyway. Some choice bits:quote:But he also receives a great deal of other advice, such as the report from a group of economists called the Item Club, saying it would be “bad economics” to go ahead with £4 billion of fresh cuts to government spending. These economists are no doubt experienced and well-informed professionals. You can understand their line of reasoning: since the world economy is slowing, affecting the British economy as it does so, taking more spending out of the Government’s own Budget might accidentally slow it down a bit more – therefore don’t do it. Or to put it another way, yes lots of economists are telling us that cutting is a bad idea. But we can ignore them because economics isn't one of those 'sciences' where cuts might actually affect things like businesses and individuals. No, the important thing is to maintain confidence that we have a 'plan' and that 'discipline' will be 'exerted'. So yeah, government cuts are more about sending a message than being based on any economic evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Implies that they think they've got some strategy here. Even with whipping, you'd usually expect a few more rebellions than that over such a controversial bill. To be fair abstaining until the bill is in it's final form and then voting against it is a sound strategy. If nothing else it makes their opposition look considered rather than reactionary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:The sugar tax is a bit of an odd one. There's the argument that it disproportionately affects the poor, but the reason for that is because supermarkets sell high-sugar processed poo poo that traps poor people in a cycle of terrible nutrition, so maybe the sugar tax will prevent that. It probably won't, though, and they'll get around it by using sweeteners that will turn out to cause cancer twenty years down the line. Supermarkets sell high-sugar processed poo poo to the rich and poor alike though. The fact that the poor are more affected is more likely to be due to a lack of similarly priced alternatives and the increased desire for instant gratification when the rest of your life sucks. They aren't 'trapped' by the sugary drinks themselves, they are trapped by external factors similar to those that encourage smoking, alcohol and junk food. None of which are helped by an extra tax. It's just another example of the 'all stick, no carrot' approach that further restricts the already limited options of the poor and imposes no such restriction on the better off. Having said that, there are more healthy options available now and while restricting choice for adults can be bad it's mainly kids you want to protect from these drinks. Plus it might help encourage manufacturers to find new recipes that back off on the frankly ludicrous amounts of sugar in some new drinks. So swings and roundabouts. I'm a doctor, so I sort of approve, but I just wish there was more positive health policy like subsidized healthy meals or free gym membership to go along with all the discouragement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
TinTower posted:There's a time and a place to protest Muslim homophobia. At an anti-EDL demo is neither of those. LQBT groups supported the miner's strike despite protests from some miners, and it ended up helping both causes and fostering acceptance. Should they have respected that there is a time and a place for gay rights?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Good film, that Really was.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
TinTower posted:But solidarity striking is completely different to trying to wreck an anti-racist protest? How was he trying to wreck their protest though? If he is telling the truth about his sign it sounds like he was trying to show solidarity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Going to an anti-EDL demo in Tower Hamlets with a placard saying "No to the EDL and far-right Islamists; oppose all hate" is like going to Reclaim the Night and saying "No to rape and misandry: oppose all sexism". Not really, because Muslims and LGBT are both minority groups deserving of support and able to show solidarity to one another. You obviously can't say the same for feminists and 'men's rights advocates'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:From the Times: Any more info on this YouGov poll? Can't seem to find it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
If anyone was waiting for the obligatory 'Labour's new poll lead is terrible news for Corbyn' article, the Telegraph has obliged.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I wish I'd thought of something clever like that but it was six in the morning outside the casino and I was off my face. I just grabbed his jacket and yelled in his face until my mate pulled me away. How did a random stranger find out you are a communist?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
So this message just went out to all junior doctors from the BMA:The BMA posted:Today JDC met to consider the options open to us in the wake of continuing Government intransigence. So we will be escalating our strike action. Not sure how yet, but I guess either longer, more frequent or upgrading to a full strike.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:The assessment has never been about work capability, was not designed for work capability, and the money being saved is in barring the unfit to work from receiving benefit. The reason they don't use medical professionals was that a) the test was not designed by medical professionals and b) medical professionals won't do what they're told as often. As a doctor, this. Junior doctors are currently being bombarded with ads offering jobs doing work capability assessments. You get a ridiculous salary (£70k+), a purely nine to five, monday to friday week and a host of other perks like a company car and private health insurance. Compare all that to the life of stress, long hours and mediocre pay the NHS offers. The best part is, you are not responsible at all for the overall decision about benefits. All you have to do is watch people complete a number of work related activities while you tick boxes on a form. The final decision is then made by someone who never meets the patient and just reads your assessment. Why do they do it that way? Because it's easier to do the job if you aren't the one making the decisions, and it's easier to make the decisions if you never see the person whose life you will be affecting. The whole thing is set up like some kind of loving Milgram experiment to make it as easy as possible for human beings to gently caress each other over. Thankfully there don't seem to be that many takers for the job, and those that do are widely criticised by the rest of the community.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/711134424197419008 So how terrible is this guy likely to be?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/711171135677792256 IDS is going on the Marr show tomorrow, presumably to rip into Cameron and Osbourne. It's like a dream.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Antares posted:I've never cringed as hard as i did watching Ed trying to flip his Be Hard switch for Paxman I remember being incredibly angry that Cameron got asked serious, statesmanlike questions and Miliband literally got asked if he could take Putin in a fight. Totally changed my opinion of Paxman.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Then so would anybody else be were they elected to the same position. I think it's fairly self evident that anyone you elect to Leader of the Opposition will not be a 'nobody' even if they were before.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:As a disabled cripple in the ESA Support Group, I'm filled with abject fear. I don't know if this government will allow me to live to get a chance of voting them out in 2020. By 2020 they are planning on cutting all central govt funding to local councils, including money ringfenced for care. They WILL attack PIP, just more slowly, and the ESA cuts are going to happen when everyone is migrated to UC in the next year or two. This is a great thing and we need more people like you. Having said that I would have been a touch more careful with the language used. Phrases like 'I will hunt you down' and 'you won't be able to hide from me' could easily be interpreted as threatening/intimidating, and if you find yourself on the receiving end of a restraining order or harassment charge it wouldn't be very nice (although publicity I guess). Still, best of luck with this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:I literally have nothing to lose, and fighting him in the way that I'm doing seems to be the only medicine I can find to stop myself taking the final journey so to speak.... It also seems to be stopping my friends from doing the same too. As much as I support your political stance, it would be remiss of me as a doctor to not express concern about you talking like this. If you are feeling suicidal and if your pain is not well controlled then seek help, either from your GP or from another professional. Government cuts are as lovely as they come, but we have had enough people committing suicide over them and I'm sure in reality you have a lot more to live for than drawing attention to this scumbag government (admirable a cause though it is). We need you around to help build the glorious new Corbyn-topia, so please don't let things get to a dangerous point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:The pain I can handle. If you're in 9/10 pain from kidney stones, take some drat opioids. Unless you are using them on a daily basis they pose no problem at all. And if you do need them on a daily basis, they probably won't ruin your life as much as constant pain will.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
fuctifino posted:Thanks for the reality slap. I've just been on the phone to NHS 111 out of hours service, and am waiting for a call back. Not sure if they are able to inject me with something until I get to see my GP tomorrow, but we'll see. If you have any questions that I might be able to help with as a genuine medical (junior) doctor, feel free to PM me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 16:36
|
|