A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT - Brexit? and BBC, and ...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 15th 18, 02:29 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default OT - Brexit? and BBC, and ...

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Update: I am getting at least one of the BBC stations free (for the news),
and there are several. I'm most interested in the "news" station
selections. I've pretty much given up on some over here for news, with the
exception of the PBS network. :-)


(-:. The BBC News Channel for internal consumption here does seem to
spend a lot of time on Brexit - not that that's bad in itself, but it's
to the exclusion of most everything else, apart from headlines.
[]
not sure if anybody listens to SW radio anymore, by the way. Remember
those days? I still remember station HCJB from Quito, Ecuador,
broadcasting a strong signal up here :-)


Here, I remember Radio Moscow, something from Israel, Radio Tirana
(Albania), Deutsche Welle, something from Austria, Radio Prague ... all
those distorted-xylophone interval signals, happy days (-:.


Yup. Actually, I guess SW radio still exists, and maybe I should look into
that just for kicks again. For one thing, it's easier to spin the dial and
just land on something you might like, vs using an Internet Radio, with all
its menus and submenus, and seemingly infinite multitude of station
selections! (but at least they all come in clear :-)


Power-line signalling devices - and, to be fair, lots of other
electronics, if only power supplies - have raised the general level of
hash to the point a lot of weak radio isn't usable any more. Or so I've
read.

Part of the problem is that we _are_ different, and there have been
cases where the EU has said "do it our way" where letting individual
nations do it their own way would not have actually weakened the
whole: in other words, not everything has to be centrally controlled,
but there are some at the core of the EU - quite possibly with the
best of intentions, rather than any evil intent - who think it does.

OK. Yeah, I have to admit the EU states do have a lot of differences,
unlike us.

Really? I have never visited the USA, but I think you're at least as
diverse, other than in language: I think a truck with "Man love rules"
in big pink letters on it would travel through parts of CA quite safely,
but some other states less so; there are real differences in the amount
of atheism tolerated between some states and others; and skin colour;
and women's rights (especially abortion) ... (-: )-:

It's got to be a LOT more different over there with all the different
governments and languages, just for starters. Here you can travel
between states without much ado. Sure, there are some "notable"
differences between


In a lot of Europe, too. In the Benelux countries borders were more or
less invisible even thirty year ago; even BeNeLux Germany France,
most of the time even though the border posts remained, you could drive
through them without stopping (usually you had to slow down, but that
was more for road safety reasons than anything else).


That sounds nice (before). And over here you now have to have a passport
to go into Canada, and it wasn't that way, not all that long ago.


Is that something Canada have introduced, or just that you need the
passport to get _back_? (Or both?)

the rural conservatives, and the urban liberals, however, and that's
probably what you're thinking of. But I wouldn't characterize it so
much as state to state differences, but region to region differences
(notably urban vs rural). That said, I'm not denying that there are at
least somewhat notable state-to-state differences. Like between
California (which is pretty rich), and say West Virginia (which is
pretty poor, and quite rural)


And I think CA - and (urban) NY - more permissive (religion, sex, race).


For the urban CA areas, yes (probably not the rural CA so much, although
admitedly, rural CA isn't as conservative as some parts of the Southeastern
USA, for example (which are known as "the Deep South" - very conservative).

As portrayed (and yes, I _know_ caricatured would be a better word) by
Tom Lehrer:

I wanna go back to Dixie,
Take me back to dear ol' Dixie,
That's the only li'l ol' place for li'l ol' me.
Old times there are not forgotten,
Whuppin' slaves and sellin' cotton,
And waitin' for the Robert E. Lee.
(It was never there on time.)
[]
:-) I'm assuming you have heard of Silicon Valley over there. :-)
(strictly speaking, it's more San Jose, but whatever)


Yes; originally Fairchild and the Fairchildren (I _am_ showing my age).


Yup.


OK, I'm not _that_ old, I just always rather liked that description.

We have a couple of similar areas - "Silicon Glen" in Scotland (not sure
where that is), and "the M4 corridor" (an area more or less to the west
of London with lots of tech - more software than hardware these days -
companies).


That's interesting, and I didn't know that.


The M4 is of course a motorway: our single-digit motorways radiate out
from London (up to #6, anyway) - M1 north, M2 Dover, and so on
clockwise. The M4 goes towards south Wales, though the tech companies
are - well, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_corridor .
[]
No, I meant that dissing Trump (and its policies) can, I genuinely fear,
be harmful to you. (Even from here, I'm actually nervous about saying
that. But there, I've said it. If I suffer, my point will be proven,
though that won't help _me_.) Whereas the same can't be said for talking

[]
I'm not so much fearful as I am really, really, annoyed and peaved, which
sometimes transcends the fear. That said, I'm not going out in public
and announcing it to the world, because, once again, it's pointless, and
yes, I suppose there is a chance I could get stoned. :-) However, and
perhaps


And not in the CA sense of getting stoned (-:


Right. :-) (well, for the coastal (and urban) liberal parts, I mean)

[]
[back to Brexit]
_change_ anything, but to save face it might be "a guarantee that the
backstop will not be forever", or some such wording. I wish her luck: I
mean that genuinely; I disagree with her on lots of points, but I think
she sure is working hard!


I have no doubt of that. I could almost feel sorry for her, except I still
think she's on the wrong side, and is only doing this because she has made
the comittment, and doesn't want to admit defeat. It is absolutely
fascinating watching the House of Commons on CSPAN, and hearing SO much


It's not an edifying spectacle, is it )-:. The Speaker does IMO an
admirable job in keeping order, but it's depressing that he has to.

vocal opposition to Brexit, and with so many members requesting a second
referendum. But whatever, time will tell. But yes, I heard the news too,
and wasn't too surprised.


Well, nobody's suggested what the _question_ would be on a second
referendum. (Assuming it's just two choices; IMO it would be an
excellent candidate for STV, but that's not going to happen.)

[]
My own two thoughts:

1. I think another vote (referendum I mean, not in the House) _might_ be
in order, IF it was a multi-choice AND USED STV (single transferrable
vote). If it was just another two-choice one, it'd be pretty pointless


I'm not so sure, but you probably know better. Meaning if the majority vote
was no deal AND called for a second referendum, AND if the result of that
referendum then was to stay in the EU, and go back to the way things were,
pre-Brexit (and, yes, forget all the past negotiations as if they never
happened), but I'm probably being too simplistic here. (This again assumes
nothing is impossible and carved in stone - if you put your mind to it).


The media still seem to think the May Deal will be voted down by the
House. And they're saying Mrs. May's visits to - and attendance at the
summit in - Europe didn't achieve much; she certainly didn't get any
reversal, but did anyone think she would anyway? (Or that anyone else in
her place would have?) She _might_ still get enough minor tweaks to make
it acceptable - especially if we take a couple of weeks to cool off.

(though I did hear one suggestion that it be "we're leaving anyway: do
you want 'no deal' or Mrs. May's plan?"), but STV would allow people to
show their second and third choices, so that the eventual result could
be shown to be something that the majority at least didn't _hate_. But I
doubt that would be possible: the concept of STV is apparently beyond
the majority here, who voted against it last time it was suggested for
general election purposes.


This is a bit confusing for me too, but I'm not into the legalities and
practicalities as much as you all are. But I just read that the European
Court of Justice has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50
and put a stop to Brexit.. So there you have it. :-) (from the
Telegraph)


You're right, they have said that. As (OK, I'll admit it) one who _did_
vote out (and not for anything to do with immigration), I can't help
thinking that if we did that, we'd be back in with folk that
(understandably! I wouldn't in their position) won't trust us an inch -
and also, will fairly soon implement something that makes it impossible
for anyone ever to leave again.

2. What's the _problem_ with treating Northern Ireland separately

[]
It just sounds to me a lot simpler if you all are together in this thing (as
much as possible), despite your other differences, but that's just my
admitedly simplistic viewpoint. I don't think this Brexit thing is helping
in this regard (or perhaps any regard, for that matter).


I don't know what will happen.

JPG





[UK only:]
Think petitions unfair? Visit 255soft.uk (YOUR VOTE COUNTS)! [Pass it on.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

G B Shaw said: "Few people think more than two or three times a year; I have
made an international reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week."
(quoted by "Dont Bother" [sic], 2015-8-24.)
Ads
  #2  
Old December 15th 18, 04:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill in Co[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default OT - Brexit? and BBC, and ...

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Update: I am getting at least one of the BBC stations free (for the
news), and there are several. I'm most interested in the "news" station
selections. I've pretty much given up on some over here for news, with
the exception of the PBS network. :-)


(-:. The BBC News Channel for internal consumption here does seem to
spend a lot of time on Brexit - not that that's bad in itself, but it's
to the exclusion of most everything else, apart from headlines.
[]
not sure if anybody listens to SW radio anymore, by the way. Remember
those days? I still remember station HCJB from Quito, Ecuador,
broadcasting a strong signal up here :-)

Here, I remember Radio Moscow, something from Israel, Radio Tirana
(Albania), Deutsche Welle, something from Austria, Radio Prague ... all
those distorted-xylophone interval signals, happy days (-:.


Yup. Actually, I guess SW radio still exists, and maybe I should look
into that just for kicks again. For one thing, it's easier to spin the
dial and just land on something you might like, vs using an Internet
Radio, with all its menus and submenus, and seemingly infinite multitude
of station selections! (but at least they all come in clear :-)


Power-line signalling devices - and, to be fair, lots of other
electronics, if only power supplies - have raised the general level of
hash to the point a lot of weak radio isn't usable any more. Or so I've
read.


Weak radio? I'm not sure what you meant bu that, but I'm guessing you mean
a cheap SW radio. I'm still assuming a good SW radio might still work ok,
though. I just haven't listened to SW (shortwave) in a long, long time.

Part of the problem is that we _are_ different, and there have been
cases where the EU has said "do it our way" where letting individual
nations do it their own way would not have actually weakened the
whole: in other words, not everything has to be centrally
controlled, but there are some at the core of the EU - quite
possibly with the best of intentions, rather than any evil intent -
who think it does.

OK. Yeah, I have to admit the EU states do have a lot of
differences, unlike us.

Really? I have never visited the USA, but I think you're at least as
diverse, other than in language: I think a truck with "Man love rules"
in big pink letters on it would travel through parts of CA quite
safely, but some other states less so; there are real differences in
the amount of atheism tolerated between some states and others; and
skin colour; and women's rights (especially abortion) ... (-: )-:

It's got to be a LOT more different over there with all the different
governments and languages, just for starters. Here you can travel
between states without much ado. Sure, there are some "notable"
differences between

In a lot of Europe, too. In the Benelux countries borders were more or
less invisible even thirty year ago; even BeNeLux Germany France,
most of the time even though the border posts remained, you could drive
through them without stopping (usually you had to slow down, but that
was more for road safety reasons than anything else).


That sounds nice (before). And over here you now have to have a
passport to go into Canada, and it wasn't that way, not all that long
ago.


Is that something Canada have introduced, or just that you need the
passport to get _back_? (Or both?)


I don't know, and haven't looked into it.

the rural conservatives, and the urban liberals, however, and that's
probably what you're thinking of. But I wouldn't characterize it so
much as state to state differences, but region to region differences
(notably urban vs rural). That said, I'm not denying that there are at
least somewhat notable state-to-state differences. Like between
California (which is pretty rich), and say West Virginia (which is
pretty poor, and quite rural)

And I think CA - and (urban) NY - more permissive (religion, sex, race).


For the urban CA areas, yes (probably not the rural CA so much, although
admitedly, rural CA isn't as conservative as some parts of the
Southeastern USA, for example (which are known as "the Deep South" -
very conservative).

As portrayed (and yes, I _know_ caricatured would be a better word) by
Tom Lehrer:

I wanna go back to Dixie,
Take me back to dear ol' Dixie,
That's the only li'l ol' place for li'l ol' me.
Old times there are not forgotten,
Whuppin' slaves and sellin' cotton,
And waitin' for the Robert E. Lee.
(It was never there on time.)


Yup. :-)

[]
:-) I'm assuming you have heard of Silicon Valley over there. :-)
(strictly speaking, it's more San Jose, but whatever)

Yes; originally Fairchild and the Fairchildren (I _am_ showing my age).


Yup.


I remember Fairchild Semiconductor from the 1970's. :-)

OK, I'm not _that_ old, I just always rather liked that description.

We have a couple of similar areas - "Silicon Glen" in Scotland (not sure
where that is), and "the M4 corridor" (an area more or less to the west
of London with lots of tech - more software than hardware these days -
companies).


That's interesting, and I didn't know that.


The M4 is of course a motorway: our single-digit motorways radiate out
from London (up to #6, anyway) - M1 north, M2 Dover, and so on
clockwise. The M4 goes towards south Wales, though the tech companies
are - well, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_corridor .


Interesting!

[]
No, I meant that dissing Trump (and its policies) can, I genuinely
fear, be harmful to you. (Even from here, I'm actually nervous about
saying that. But there, I've said it. If I suffer, my point will be
proven, though that won't help _me_.) Whereas the same can't be said
for talking
[]
I'm not so much fearful as I am really, really, annoyed and peaved,
which sometimes transcends the fear. That said, I'm not going out in
public and announcing it to the world, because, once again, it's
pointless, and yes, I suppose there is a chance I could get stoned.
:-) However, and perhaps

And not in the CA sense of getting stoned (-:


Right. :-) (well, for the coastal (and urban) liberal parts, I mean)

[]
[back to Brexit]
_change_ anything, but to save face it might be "a guarantee that the
backstop will not be forever", or some such wording. I wish her luck: I
mean that genuinely; I disagree with her on lots of points, but I think
she sure is working hard!


I have no doubt of that. I could almost feel sorry for her, except I
still think she's on the wrong side, and is only doing this because she
has made the comittment, and doesn't want to admit defeat. It is
absolutely fascinating watching the House of Commons on CSPAN, and
hearing SO much


It's not an edifying spectacle, is it )-:. The Speaker does IMO an
admirable job in keeping order, but it's depressing that he has to.


True. We don't usually get to see such heated exchanges over here. But
watching Congress on CSPAN seems dry compared to watching you guys debate in
the British House of Commons. :-)


vocal opposition to Brexit, and with so many members requesting a second
referendum. But whatever, time will tell. But yes, I heard the news
too, and wasn't too surprised.


Well, nobody's suggested what the _question_ would be on a second
referendum. (Assuming it's just two choices; IMO it would be an
excellent candidate for STV, but that's not going to happen.)


We shall see...

[]
My own two thoughts:

1. I think another vote (referendum I mean, not in the House) _might_ be
in order, IF it was a multi-choice AND USED STV (single transferrable
vote). If it was just another two-choice one, it'd be pretty pointless


I'm not so sure, but you probably know better. Meaning if the majority
vote was no deal AND called for a second referendum, AND if the result
of that referendum then was to stay in the EU, and go back to the way
things were, pre-Brexit (and, yes, forget all the past negotiations as
if they never happened), but I'm probably being too simplistic here.
(This again assumes nothing is impossible and carved in stone - if you
put your mind to it).


The media still seem to think the May Deal will be voted down by the
House. And they're saying Mrs. May's visits to - and attendance at the
summit in - Europe didn't achieve much; she certainly didn't get any
reversal, but did anyone think she would anyway? (Or that anyone else in
her place would have?) She _might_ still get enough minor tweaks to make
it acceptable - especially if we take a couple of weeks to cool off.


After watching the House of Commons for the past few weeks, I can't see the
May deal getting approved by the House, but, who knows.. anything is
possible.

(though I did hear one suggestion that it be "we're leaving anyway: do
you want 'no deal' or Mrs. May's plan?"), but STV would allow people to
show their second and third choices, so that the eventual result could
be shown to be something that the majority at least didn't _hate_. But I
doubt that would be possible: the concept of STV is apparently beyond
the majority here, who voted against it last time it was suggested for
general election purposes.


This is a bit confusing for me too, but I'm not into the legalities and
practicalities as much as you all are. But I just read that the
European Court of Justice has ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke
Article 50 and put a stop to Brexit.. So there you have it. :-) (from
the Telegraph)


You're right, they have said that. As (OK, I'll admit it) one who _did_
vote out (and not for anything to do with immigration), I can't help
thinking that if we did that, we'd be back in with folk that
(understandably! I wouldn't in their position) won't trust us an inch -
and also, will fairly soon implement something that makes it impossible
for anyone ever to leave again.


I guess that could happen. And what has already happened may make other
nations think twice about wanting to leave the EU. As for any trust issue,
I expect that issue would probably get resolved with a dose of time.

2. What's the _problem_ with treating Northern Ireland separately

[]
It just sounds to me a lot simpler if you all are together in this thing
(as much as possible), despite your other differences, but that's just my
admitedly simplistic viewpoint. I don't think this Brexit thing is
helping in this regard (or perhaps any regard, for that matter).


I don't know what will happen.


Nope, none of us likely do. Time will tell....


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.