Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
Why are catheters so thick, then? Wouldn't a thinner version be less uncomfortable?

Enquiring minds want to know

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

TheHoodedClaw posted:

It'd have to have a certain sturdiness to allow it to be rammed up your knob, I imagine
:ohdear:

good point

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
T-shirts and jumpers are apparently produced with a standard sleeve length, and small/medium/large/extra large/xxxxxxxxxxx large (or whatever we're up to now) just means that they change the length of the torso slightly while keeping the arms the same standard length.

What i'm saying is that every t-shirt or jumper or shirt smaller than a Large is made for people with extra-long gorilla arms and it's frustrating as gently caress

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Pochoclo posted:

I hope you guys bought dollars.
idk, according to the Trump thread they've just basically declared war on Iran

The value of the pound is like a daily summary of who's winning the stupidity race between Britain and 'Murca

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

DesperateDan posted:

Dickies workwear do a "tall" sizing across a lot of their stuff which is great for lanky people like me, long arms long legs and proper long torsos on everything, and it lasts quite well even on jobsites, let alone casual wear.
I'm 5'8 rather than lanky

The only upside is giving no fucks about seats on planes

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Regarde Aduck posted:

This is terrifying if there's any truth to it.

It's not that America can't overpower Iran, it's that Iran's military is so much better than what they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan that they will end up using much more ordnance and blowing up large portions of cities. They won't be able to just surgically strike targets. They're gonna have to cruise missile the poo poo out of them. The civilian casualties would be huge.
to be clear this is just something i read in single-line shitposts as people were watching a white house press briefing, idk any of the actual info behind it

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

LemonDrizzle posted:

Paul Nuttall may be going to pokey:

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/826914332768423936

The penalty for lying on your nomination form is: you go to prison for up to six months, you're banned from voting for multiple years, and if you've been elected, you're automatically kicked out
I think you'll find any judge trying so blatantly to oppose the Will Of The People™ would be well-advised to think again, comrade :toughguy:

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

learnincurve posted:

I think that's what people living and working in London want. I live in the North and what people really want here, is the government to subsidise train ticket prices down to London so we can access all those lovely free museums and galleries, and most crucially, to build council houses. The brexit vote was used by a lot of people to send a message that we are unhappy with the housing situation, and with the full knowledge that Brexit will gently caress London but that it can't get any worse for people stuck living in high unemployment low wage areas with a high street full of charity shops and American owned coffee shops.
Although Londoners may complain about how high house prices and rents are in the capital and "you can live in a bedsit in Clapham or buy a 5 bed in Birmingham" that only applies if you can afford to actually buy a house. Outside of London It's getting almost impossible to find private landlords who will take DSS and if you do find one it's the absolute dregs with a tenancy that can be ended on the Landlord's whim. Build council houses, and the "they come over here and get given a council house when ordinary working class people can't get one" argument being used by racists, which probably caused the Brexit majority, will vanish.
Unfortunately this isn't the message that was heard, the message that was heard was apparently "kick all the foreigners out, ditch our biggest trading partner, and lube up so we can sell the NHS to The Great Orange Baboon".

If people wanted more houses built the way to do it was probably by lobbying local government and by supporting MPs or parties who support more houses being built. Voting to leave the EU, which has precisely nothing to do with how many houses get built, is like trying to fix a leaky tap by ordering a new television: utterly unrelated to the problem and therefore totally insane.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

El Pollo Blanco posted:

Unfortunately, the concept of government interfering in the housing market is terrifying to both the left and right political parties because the only people who vote are homeowners, apparently.
This isn't true. The government repeatedly interferes in the housing market by:

- Banning local authorities from borrowing to build council houses, with the borrowing secured against future rents. This is how council house-building was financed for decades but it's been illegal since the 1980s
- Failing to reform the planning system, which is a huge interferece in the housing market because it says there are large tracts of the country upon which you can't build houses no matter how severe the demand is
- Things like Help to Buy and LISAs and shared-ownership schemes, all of which literally and directly spend tax revenue to prop up house prices.

The trick is the government only inteferes if it will raise prices. It has no interest in lowering them, because homeowners vote.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
How can the loving Northern Ireland Affairs Committee be so loving clueless about something that's utterly obvious to anyone with a brain cell and who's been paying attention to British history for the past few decades

I mean gently caress me how is it news that there will need to be border controls between the EU and the UK when the UK leaves the EU.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

El Pollo Blanco posted:

I am not from the UK, and I didn't know this, but jesus christ that's depressing. Which I suppose is to be expected of Britain in the 80s.
OK, that was slightly strongly put - it was illegal under Thatcher. Labour made it slightly less illegal by imposing a cap on how much councils could borrow, but it's a very low cap which is why almost no council housing has been built for 30+ years

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

jBrereton posted:

The fuckin planning system is not a barrier to building houses, that is a MASSIVE lie the building firms love to perpetuate.
The green belt is designed to stop housing being built wherever you want, and planning rules stop you (for instance) building a giant extension that blocks your neighbour's light. Both are "interfering" in the housing market. Interference isn't always bad, but the housing market is tightly controlled and not anything even remotely resembling a free market. There is plenty of government interference. Some of it is useful and desirable (like safety regulations), some of it isn't (Help to Buy), almost all of it makes prices higher than they'd otherwise be.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
Anyone wondering about what a post-Brexit ROI/NI border might look like, something like the Swedish-Norwegian border is probably the best possible outcome:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04gw07s

"Delays can be as little as half an hour"

Norway, of course, is in the Single Market whereas Britain won't be, which is quite a big problem with copying that model.

Zephro fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Feb 2, 2017

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

WeAreTheRomans posted:

Yeah, it's an interesting comparison, but since Norway and Sweden are both Schengen and also part of the Nordic Passport Union you probably can't extrapolate too much other than it will definitely be worse than that.
Yeah exactly, it's a real-life example of how this sort of thing works except that Norway is closer to Europe than Britain will be after Brexit so whatever they negotiate won't be as good as this. So those half-hour delays are likely to be a lot worse in practise.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
Coming soon to a river near you via May's desperate glorious free trade deal with the USA

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
Ties should be opposed as vigorously as anime, they are terrible

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Gum posted:

I don't think there's been a party in history that's more consistently underperformed media expectations than ukip
I think you can make the case that Farage is the most successful politician of the past 20+ years. His main policy was and still is seen as stupid and clownish by 90% of everyone with a clue, and by pretty much the entire top leadership of both big parties, and it's happening anyway. He's constantly in the news, he's got his way on a huge topic of generational importance and he's done it all without ever getting in to Parliament

Ukip isn't the sole reason for Brexit but it's certainly part of it

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

HJB posted:

Quote on the Victoria Derbyshire show: "Some parts of the UK are experiencing outbreaks of tuberculosis that are higher than much poorer countries like Yemen and Iraq."

I was surprised by this, so i had a look for the numbers.
Not only is it true, it's been true for at least a decade:

http://www.economist.com/node/10443168

As that article points out, rickets is the other Victorian disease making a comeback

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

spectralent posted:

My grandma voted for remain on the exact opposite basis, actually; she thought that being tied together was what's stopped europe fighting. "We've never had it so good" basically.
This was the exact idea behind what became the EU in the first place, so good for her. It was barely mentioned at all in the referendum campaign.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

icantfindaname posted:

okay so i read the New Statesman instead of the guardian to keep the lib stuff to a minimum, but today i'm presented with this

http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/social-media/2017/02/furred-reich-truth-about-nazi-furries-and-alt-right


is literally the entirety of the british press terrible?
The New Statesman has been on a bizarre quest for relevance and down-wiv-da-yoofness for a while now. They have endless articles on the deep cultural meaning of video games and Marvel superhero films and stuff (they did a feature recently called "What Would Captain America Make Of Donald Trump ffs). I like video games and lovely movies as much as the next guy but the New Statesman is not the place. This just feels like that dialed to 11. It's basically Trendy Vicar: The News Magazine and now it's gone horribly wrong

Zephro fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 3, 2017

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
John Harris continues to be A Good Reporter

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/leavers-cheap-eu-labour-workers-brexiters

It's a video hence no copy/paste but it's worth watching

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Guavanaut posted:

Everyone take out your copybooks, today's lesson is Liberals will always defend right wing populism over any kind of leftism. Write it 100 times.


I had a quick look at the Federalist and it seems to be a right-wing, god-and-family, Christianty-with-everything website more than a liberal one

edit: 2032: Arnold Schwarzenegger is the president, to the annoyance of Sylvester Stallone. How he's still alive by then is unknown, but hey, at least it implies that Trump will leave him something to be president of

Zephro fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Feb 5, 2017

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Skinty McEdger posted:

British animation for British people.

If the main character isn't voiced by David Jason then it shouldn't be allowed.
British anime. Branime.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Doctor_Fruitbat posted:

British children's animation is so bad it makes me want to cry. It's not like they don't have access to the good stuff being pumped out of the US, it's just that they look at it, think "that's nice" then go back to writing garbage.
Peppa Pig is actually great and I will fight anyone who says otherwise

the model UN episode is worth it all by itself

Also the VA who does Daddy Pig also did the voice work in the original Dungeon Keeper, which pleases me greatly

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
A land value tax (which is what this essentially is) is one of those ideas that hangs around Westminster like a ghost. Every couple of years someone points out that it would be a really good idea, and then nothing gets done.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

LemonDrizzle posted:

The problem is that after the first guy points out that it would be a good idea, a second guy points out that it would cost a huge amount of political capital to make the change, with no short term payoff.
Yes, pretty much. Like a lot of things with housing. That's also the reason why the Tories have finally admitted the housing market is hosed up beyond repair, but instead of doing something to build more houses and bring prices down, they've decided they'll make renting marginally less poo poo. Gotta avoid offending those elderly Tory-voting homeowners.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

jabby posted:

Sajid Javid also promising to protect green belt land but look 'more seriously at density' so that available land is used 'more efficiently'.

I've nothing against high density housing, but it's a total gently caress you to the poor to cram them into tiny flats when there's plenty of land available but rich people like looking at useless fields too much.
If they just nuke all of London, Birmingham and a few other cities and replace the rows of pointless suburban houses with tiny gardens with low-rise courtyarded apartments like you get in Vienna or Amsterdam, with lots of little parks everywhere, that would solve all problems

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Private Speech posted:

It's because not enough houses are being built. There's any number of articles stretching back decades showing >100k house building deficit per year.
The exact specific problem is that the ability of local councils to borrow money secured against future rents was drastically curtailed by the Thatcher government. Prior to that, almost all council-house building was paid for that way, and we built 400,000 houses a year or more. In the aftermath of the second world war, when large parts of the country were a literal smoking ruin and food rationing was still in effect, we built more than twice as many houses as we build today.

If you look at charts of housebuilding the main reason the numbers have plunged is that councils have almost completely stopped building houses (because they could no longer borrow the money to do so), and the private sector and housing associations have not taken up the slack. Unsurprisingly, the mid-1980s is when the current wave of house-price booms really took off.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
Fake-edit-in-a-new-post: those booms have also created a new political reality. Back in the 60s Labour and the Tories used to compete on who could build more council houses every year. That's inconceivable now. Thirty years of booms have convinced everyone that "house prices will always rise" is like Newton's Fourth Law of Motion or something, just a fundamental physical constant of the universe. Lots of people have planned their lives around that supposed fact and so there's a huge amount of resistance to the idea of doing anything that can change it. All this talk in the press of the housing crisis as a new thing is at least a decade and a half behind the times - things have been bad for Joe Average Young Person since at least the mid-2000s.

What's changed is that the twentysomethings who couldn't afford houses in 2005 still can't afford them now that they're late-thirtysomethings, and at the same time there's a rising tide of today's twentysomethings also building up behind them. So there's finally getting to be a large enough mass of people for whom houses are forever out of reach that the political calculus is slowly starting to shift in favour of taking their interests at least somewhat seriously.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Baron Corbyn posted:

Having lived in Taiwan, massive high rises are actually cool and good and give you affordable housing in convenient central locations.
Yes, I lived in Hong Kong and had the same experience. For some reason Britain is Soviet-Union-level bad when it comes to doing high-rises well, though that's staritng to change in central London. You can put swimming pools and gyms in pretty much every tower block because the density is high enough to support them, and having them encourages socialising. You can put parks everywhere in all the space you save, and you can run cheap public transport without subsidy in your cities because again, the population density is high enough to support it.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Paxman posted:


South West £239,371


Stupidly high house prices are a London and South East thing. You can buy a home in the North East if you have some money.
The South West is very unaffordable (source: I lived there). Local wages are low (according to this the median income is between £17k and £20k) and prices are very high compared to those wages (£239,371 is between 12 and 14 times the median wage quoted by that map). Prices are bid up by people from the South East retiring down there or buying holiday houses.

It's just not true that stupidly high house prices are only a problem in London and the South East.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Guavanaut posted:

Better to reign in Hull, than serve in Devon.
Have a :golfclap:

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Oh dear me posted:

No it doesn't. You are just quoting the part in my link where he outlines the BBC report I was pretty sure you got your figure from. Read on and you will see:

"I should raise a note of caution to this rather optimistic assessment. Just because a landscape appears to be green and not “built on” does not mean that it is natural (untouched by human activity) and able to support a viable, healthy ecosystem."

As I said, urban areas contain thousands of bits of greenery. But people who complain about the countryside being ruined are not saying there are no sports grounds or grass verges in towns. Bits of greenery are not countryside.
I have some sympathy for this view but to be consistent we should also exclude all farmland, because that's very much not natural. Farms are food factories. There's nothing natural about them and they are bad for biodiversity.

If the criterion is "untouched by human activity" then there is virtually zero countryside anywhere in Britain. Almost every wood has been managed and coppiced, farms certainly don't count, the Highlands are not a natural landscape etc.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

JFairfax posted:

it doesn't help that buses + trains are expensive and poo poo.

even major metropolitain areas in the united states have cheaper busses + trains than the UK.
When I lived in Hong Kong taxis, tube and buses were a third the price of their British equivalents or even less (I remember the cheapest MTR fare being around $3 which was about 27p at the time (late 1990s)). This despite the fact that Hong Kong had higher per capita income than the UK.

High density housing is one big reason. High population density = cheap and good public transport.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
I mean it's always going to be expensive to send a bus tooling out ten miles to the middle of Ruralshire to pick up one or two people

Basically as someone who lives in the countryside, the countryside is poo poo and you should try to live in a city instead

It's too late for me, but you can still save yourselves

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

JFairfax posted:

the problem comes when you have to make it profitable
Or alternatively when you're spending tax money on that instead of on more crucial things.

Services in the countryside are always going to be crap compared to services in the city, it's inevitable. It's part of the reality of living there.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

LemonDrizzle posted:

This is a good thing because people who live south of the river are unsettling web-footed abominations and must be kept away from normal people insofar as possible.

e: Also, when comparing public transport available in cities you have to consider their populations because an investment that is economically sound with a large population to serve won't necessarily make sense with a much smaller one. For example, people have been comparing british cities to Hong Kong (pop 7m), Chicago (pop ~3m) and New York (pop ~8m). The largest UK city outside London is Birmingham, whose population barely breaks 1m.
London's public transport system is better than the rest of the UK's but still not a patch on Hong Kong's (or other big East Asian cities). Part of that is the late-adopter effect (late adopters get better infrastructure; London is stuck with Tube lines built 150 years ago and designed for steam trains). But a big part of it is comparatively low population density and the insistence on building vast swathes of suburban semis with small gardens from Zone 3 outwards.

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
To be fair, when I think of someone I want in charge of the country I don't think of someone who's drunk on sleep deprivation while making all the important decisions because they bought Thatcher's macho bollocks about only needing 4 hours of sleep a night

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
i'm posting from one of the two 4.4 minute, CCTV-enforced toilet breaks i get during the day

a literal shitpost

(not really)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Gravitas Shortfall posted:

I'm an EU citizen who only speaks English, my options are somewhat limited.
No they aren't. Vast swathes of Europe speak English well enough that you'll be fine for a few months until you can start picking up Danish/German/Swedish/Dutch or whatever

  • Locked thread