pap

My uncle has worked there for decades. Gutted for him and anyone else losing their jobs, but the pattern of events is depressingly, nothing new. Manufacturing jobs moved to more cost-effective countries for a better bottom line. Though Henry Ford was vehemently anti-union, he did pay his employees very well. I wonder what he'd have made of all this.

Much respect for making the Echo! Glad to see them taking the spoon business seriously!

As the locals round here might say, "Eeeeeeee!" With slightly less local dialect, that is rather disturbing with hindsight. May be a case of 2+2=5, but at this point, probably wouldn't be a surprise. People have often made the point that as a dead person, Savile can't defend himself. True of all dead people, innit? Eeeeeee.

Nope. We're better off where we are. We just need not to lose our sh!t.

Agreed. They are a company that retains high pricing to retain the perceived value of their brand, competing in an extremely price-competitive sector of the market. I can't even see die-hard Macsturbators going for the Mini. Most of them will have the full size job. Madness.

Couple of reasons behind the "new iPad" ( not even sure it is called iPad 4 ). First, they want to get people using the new adapters. Second, don't think the A6 chip was quite ready back in March. The Mini is not a "wow product". It's a "me too" product launched at a "wow product" price. Apple losing it, IMO.

Not that impressed with Apple in general at the moment. The move into the mini tablet range doesn't inspire in the same way as the iPhone or iPad did. 1024x768 screen? Meh. I'm even thinking of jipping off the new iPhone in favour of an Android phone, especially since they've used this product announcement to announce that the iPad I've had for 3 months is being replaced too

If you were talking the relative difference between say a Spitfire and a fighter jet, you'd be bang on sir. Even if you compare one fighter jet generation to the next, your point holds up admirably. This article suggests that the pendulum has swung the other way in terms of budgetary considerations. Full article is worth a read. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/take_two_drones_and_call_me_in_the_morning

The comparison with cruise missiles is a fair one, but I think drones, or more broadly, military automata - have got a lot more potential; a complete game changer. Right now, our ten drones will be remotely piloted by real people. There's a human constraint which affects our ability to scale. As soon as these things are sufficiently automated, anyone with enough raw material and manufacturing capability ( or money ) can buy themselves air power. The biggest air battle in history involved around 200 planes, while the Luftwaffe operated just under 2K planes of all kinds at its height. Military types: how many drones could a country like China could put in the air if they didn't have to consider stuff like availability, capability, training and fatalities. 1K? 10K? It's the potential scale that I find fascinating and a bit scary. How many countries have the air capability to deal with 10K drones bearing down on their capital city?

Says the man with the Alan Partridge avatar.

So drone pilots not allowed to comment then?

Actually do not doubt it. So what happens to you lot when you're replaced by dog-bothering cyborgs?

Think as time goes on, the club looks worse for continuing the feud. Hello, we'll buy a football club in a city, then never talk to that city's newspaper. All a bit playground, really.

Have you not seen any of the Terminator films?

Some? Try most. A Klingon would not consider a drone pilot honourable. Military types: where does a drone pilot sit in the pecking order of military badasses?

The Comics app on iPad is really nice, even if the content looks a bit pricey for what it is. £1.49 per comic, which is taking the p!ss a little bit. That said, I did get the first Walking Dead book for around £6. Really is a good app.

Two possibilities here. 1) the club is emulating posters here who announce people as being in their ignore list. 2) something is going on.

As communicated in the "trousers" style of early 21st century communication:- TV channels advertise own shows shocker. @trousers - not a dis, sir - rather, a homage!

I've got a measure of agreement with all of the above comments. I don't like the idea of drones in principle, but I'm a pragmatist. Even if we don't get into this tech, others will. I'll go further. Deadlier and more autonomous machines are almost a certainty. Someone somewhere will rightfully suggest pilot fatigue and human expertise as a limiting factor in combat. If you're a wannabe super-power, would you be remotely interested in tech that'd allow you to scale your military without considering the human factor? Of course you would. So yep, I hate drones. Problem is, genie is already out of the bottle. Any moral stance I might take is immediately liquidated by the fact that if I had my moral way, we wouldn't have people with drone pilot experience, which would ultimately make us less safe against people who might seek to lob a million our way. I think the potential scale of drone attacks is probably the most disturbing thing about them. We really can't be in a position where we know jack sh!t about them.

According to this Guardian article, the RAF are buying five more Reaper drones, doubling the UK's complement to 10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/22/uk-double-drones-afghanistan The forces haven't always welcomed change. In 1901, Admiral Sir Arthur Smith, Controller of the Royal Navy, denounced Holland One, the Royal Navy's first submarine, claiming it was "underhand, unfair and damned un-English". His comments seem blinkered in hindsight. German U-Boats terrorised the oceans over two world wars while boomers crawled the depths of Cold War oceans ready and able to kick off global thermonuclear war. They still do. Admiral Sir Arthur Smith missed his mark then, but are his comments perhaps applicable to the role of drones today? Essential component of an evolving modern military, or underhand, unfair and damned un-English?

I'm not sure how I feel about that, Glasgow. The PM was sent to the mod, wasn't it? Are you suggesting that the mods are rifling through all our precious PMs for sexual kicks?

I'll not quote Ohio's excellent post for fear of crashing SaintsWeb servers, but seriously, thanks for that. Very good to see how well regarded the Beeb is, although not surprising in the least. Without wanting to sound like one of the respondents from the Not the Nine O Clock News sketch, I don't see why we aren't doing even more. There are not many things that we Brits can say we're a genuine world contender on. Our cultural output is one of our biggest assets; our film production staff are often referred to as the "best in the world" by many of the Americans who have worked with them. The influence of the BBC can't be understated. I find it amazing that so-called conservatives would want to destroy what is arguably our finest institution. It's tantamount to cultural vandalism, and I reckon the only reason so many people on the right dislike it is because it's a nationalised industry pumping out world class material. That, or it shows them stuff which violently broadens the myopic worldview they so often espouse.

Hypo has been about. He was one of the few people not to immediately join the Jimmy Savile witch-hunt (characterisation of events suggested by buctootim). I am thinking of lowering my "Hypo level" from "imaginary girlfriend invention" to "non-specific sarcastic bickering". Do you reckon it's safe enough yet?

Probably not many. Spitting Image was class in the early days. I also have a soft spot for Hale and Pace. Not much more springs to mind. I'm not saying you can't do comedy on commercial telly; Channel 4 and many American shows prove otherwise. ITV just don't seem to get it.

TV companies love reality shows, Bear. Morons like them and in general, they're a lot cheaper to make. Take the X-Factor as an example. They only really need to employ scriptwriters to do the judge arguments.