pap

Are the rest of our European brothers and sisters pro-Europe? I mean, how do we know that? Sure, we assume that someone must be in favour, and largely, it's not us - so by a process of elimination, we almost assume that your average man on your average continental street is in favour of closer EU ties. Of course, there are some major problems with that assumption. First, let's look at the Euro. Every country that got the opportunity to vote on it said NO. Every country that has the currency didn't get a chance to vote on it. Then, consider how this country feels about some of the pitfalls of Europe, such as the daily cost and/or border controls which are almost impossible to police. I find it difficult to believe that other advanced economies with similar problems don't feel the same way about that. I'm sure there are elements within political groups that would love to see political union in Europe. I'm not sure that the people of Europe want the same thing.

Well, I have been playing it almost exclusively in 4GB mode. The main difference seems to be stability, not performance. I suspect the main reason I'm not seeing a massive performance jump is it's running off an SSD, and all those areas where extra memory would help ( caching, ra ra ) are pretty fast anyway.

Not sure that it really matters whether the conflict is internal or external. Also, I'm not really sure you can credit the EU with the peace we've had in the EU. Remember that for 44 years after the end of the Second World War, Western Europe wasn't allowed to fail. The US pumped money in ( through Marshall Aid, corporate relocation, etc ) as a bulwark against communism. Whatever. The EU is about to become something else, and is already a far cry from what we signed up for. While I think there's an element of truth to what you've said historically, the EU is no longer an agent for peace. It wants to create a new country made up of our nation states. That doesn't sound like a recipe for peace to me; more like one for civil war.

I don't think there is any chance of recovery. Ultimately, recovery from debt means eventually getting to a point where you have no debt and a net income each month. None of the plans seem to address this. If Eurozone members are truly serious about complete recovery, then it needs to ensure that each member state is capable of addressing its debts. Otherwise, all they're really doing is removing voting rights from people who'll inevitably end up being unable to pay into the stability fund.

I don't know. I used to look at the Great Depression and think that there was no way something like that could ever happen again. My point is, while it's nice to think that we're incapable of sliding into war, history shows us that we're all too capable of repeating very large mistakes, just through slightly different means.

Slightly unrelated, but it is worth pointing out that the last time Europe faced this much financial difficulty, it was embroiled in war within a decade. That might be a cataclysmic consequence of financial trouble if things go too far.

That is an awesome link for PC gamers. Nice one, mate. On a related note, there is a mod called Skyrim4GB, which allows the game to use more than 2GB of memory ( vanilla, that's all it'll do ).

Next time they see Rickie they should ask him. I am sure that, as a scouser, he'll know everything about these Liverpudlian conspiracies. Nige is from just over the water. He might have heard a couple of rumours rumbling out of one of the tunnels.

As far as I'm concerned, you've highlighted an important issue. Appreciate that SuperMikey has strong views about this, and I get where he's coming from. I am glad that we've seen his conviction on the subject. As he rightly points out, these aren't just "incidents" to people affected. Each orange dot represents at least one life disappearing forever and countless others that are forever negatively affected. Weston Saint - thank you too for reminding us of this.

Agree that the rather transient nature of Parliaments promotes a lot of short-term thinking. The problem is that short-termism won't help get us to out of the mess we're in.

Yup. Capitalism worked fine when there was a clash of ideologies involved. Back during the days of the Cold War, capitalism was almost synonymous with freedom. That's clearly not the case with China, who have managed to marry up and authoritarian regime with the free market and have done very well out of it. Of course, the big problem is that when we talk about competition, we're really talking about the company that can deliver the goods for the lowest cost. No-one in the West can compete on lowest cost anymore.

Well, you're entitled to your view, of course - but as we've seen from the interviews, the causes of the riots were myriad. As I said at the time, we do have questions to ask about a society which can produce attitudes that are in complete contempt of our supposedly shared values.

There are loads of people questioning the status quo and coming up with solutions, Phil. They're just not widely reported. The US treatment of Ron Paul is a case in point. Nearly everything that man says is sensible. He wants to reform the federal reserve, stop the policy of pre-emptive war, end extra-judicial killings by the state. Despite pulling impressive numbers in the primaries, this man finds the oxygen of publicity almost impossible to achieve. To a lesser extent, look at the UK's treatment of Nigel Farage. Someone else going against the grain, providing solutions to problems and almost totally ignored. Then perhaps look at Professor David Nutt, former advisor on drugs policy. He suggested that we decriminalise a load of drugs and that the "War on Drugs" was a complete waste of time and money. So let's not pretend that there aren't people out there who have suggested alternatives to the crazy way we live our lives. The problem is that politicians are only interested in perpetuating this broken free market fantasy. Until they get out of this mindset, all they're really doing is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

At the time, the riots a hot topic on SaintsWeb, with a range of opinions on offer to how it all got so far out of hand. Well, the Guardian and the LSE have done some research, using interviews from rioters and information that was available on social media. Guardian article. Worth a read, especially for those who dismissed the lot as "simple thuggery". While there is definitely an element of that in the findings, turns out it takes a lot more for UK riots to happen.

This is a subject close to my heart. My sister was hit by a car on Burgess Road when she was 11. It led to permanent health problems which she still has to this day. Also, one of the kids from my daughters' primary school actually died five years ago. Her death is on the map too. You only really have to have a degree of personal experience to start asking the question "Is getting somewhere quickly all that?". As a couple of columnists recently noted after the M5 crash, if similar destruction to human life had been wrought on the railways, there would be a public uproar and potentially multiple public inquiries. Rather appropriately, we seem to have developed a "blind spot" for motoring deaths. Problem is, absent a major change in the distance we travel to live/work/study/whatever, they'll just be seen as "the cost of doing business".

Makes me wonder why we aren't getting out sharpish. It's not a great plan. Can anyone else see this ending well? The thing that really worries me is the possibility EU-wide police and defence forces. Think we've already lurched far enough toward a police state. Having a centralised authority covering a population of 500 million is a bit too far for me.

Oddly enough, the European Constitution would have swept the labyrinthine legislation away giving us a new point to start from. Instead, we got the Lisbon Treaty, exactly the same thing, but implemented through incremental treaty updates. Worst of both worlds, really. But you're right. Most people don't have a scooby. It must mean that our Westminster Parliamentarians are doing an acceptable job of pretending they still run things Well, I'm not seeing a great deal of challenge to the US or China at the moment. Would unified armed forces be part of this union? I think we need a referendum regardless. We signed up to be members of an economic community, have had Maastricht and Lisbon pass without our assent. The EU is going to go through some major change in the next few months. I expect the line will be "this is only for the Eurozone countries", but if they are going for fiscal union, then our relationship with the EU is going to be different. I don't think it needs to get to the level of federal state for us to need a referendum. The brick-sh-it Conservatives promised that we'd have a referendum at the next treaty change. It'll be interesting to see how they grease themselves out of this one.

Once again, the EU is front-page news. Today, most of the headlines have been about Angela Merkel's intention to propose treaty changes at the next EU summit to achieve fiscal union within the Eurozone. Under the proposals, countries within the Eurozone will have to abide by a set of rules when governing their economies, with enforceable penalties for countries that break them. Britain gets to take part in the discussions, but doesn't have to sign up to them. I'm not an expert on financial harmonisation, so don't really know whether it'll solve the EU's current problems. Historically, there's evidence to suggest that harmonisation can go badly wrong. Our exit from the ERM during the Major government is one example. It could be argued that the Euro is another. Another concern is the drift of sovereignty into the EU. It's another step toward a federal Europe, and will leave the EU with unprecedented power. Finally, I wonder if major parties will recognise this as a treaty change to the EU and deliver on their promise to hold a referendum. Somehow, I doubt it. I'm sure there'll be a handy technicality in there somewhere, a la the Lisbon Treaty:- "Ah yes, it's not called a Constitution anymore. It's called a Treaty. They're completely different things!".

Hmm, other races can be racist too. There's a shocker.

That is a distinct possibility. Presumably constructed in an age with lower specifications? Lower storage would explain why it is unable to resolve the inconsistencies from one day to the next. Does it have a left-wing mode?

All our beliefs are a coincidence of our environment. A religious man born in say, India, will likely believe different things to a religious man born in Britain. People have killed over the differences for centuries and will continue to do so. We're a highly secular society. There's a big difference between self-identifying as a faith and actually practising it. I wonder what percentage of people who would call themselves Christian have actually read the Bible. If you really want to see how relevant the Bible is, try looking at churches that take it as the literal word of God.

Don't think that anyone knew much about Jos before we signed him. Wait and see was the appropriate response.

The demands did go to the office, but as far as I was concerned, I'd settled all accounts ( rent and broadband, basically ) and had no reason to go back. Still, another of life's lessons learned. Little bit poorer, little bit wiser and managed to get the bailiff issue sorted today, so it's not all bad.

I think I've got dune figured out. Goes a little something like this. 1) Start threads on controversial subject. 2) Espouse strong opinion in OP, occasionally expressing support for far-right group to gain added oomph. 3) Wait for the forum fish to feed (I include myself in that number) 4) Reply with barrage of personal insults / unsubstantiated blap / further support for far right organisations. 5) Repeat steps 3+4 ad nauseum. 6) Claim that your threads are the "most popular" on account of the high number of posts.

I was thinking the same thing. If it was someone else saying it, there would probably be more complaints. The words lose their power because its Clarkson saying them, and he's got a reputation for saying stupid things. But at the same time, is it right to ignore the content of what he said because its him saying it? We can't really ignore nobbish behaviour because someone has a reputation for being a nob. Most nobbish behaviour is committed by nobs. Written down, those words are offensive. Said by anyone else, they would be offensive. Clarkson knows what he's doing, knew what he was saying and knew what the outcome would be. He's already got a massive load of publicity for this, and I'm sure the right-wingers who believe social workers should be shot on sight will be slavering at the doors of HMV for his latest DVD. If he's going to be a nob on national prime time telly for personal gain, it's only right that he cops the shyte end of that deal. Infamy comes with a price. [video=youtube;DMuO-8S_0Wg]