It helps prevent arbitrage, I guess. That's a good thing because it moves capital to where it is wanted/needed.

I have an alternate conspiracy. I reckon they're doing it for a laugh. Every now and then they stop it and broadcast gibberish, just to see what the reaction is. That sounds like the Russians I know.

It's the Daily Mail. They probably just made it up.

This is raw data, not a spending report. We also have spending reviews; before the general election they were on the HM Treasury Site but now they've been archived. Without the legal requirements for clarity associated with private sector financial reporting, civil servants are able to hide key data in impenetrable waffle. It is also a rather different kettle of fish to the US; our government is ludicrously centralised and almost all spending is from Whitehall. The report is thus so broad in scope as to almost be meaningless. It also makes wading through this raw transaction data much more daunting.

I have. The point you raise is the reason the west European Socialists eventually turned into Social Democrats, refuting the doctrine of Revolution.

There's not much Socialism of a form Marx would recognise in Europe. There's a lot more Social Democracy.

I also dislike this argument "Oh, but we've never had true Socialism, just every single time someone tried to establish it it led to military dictatorship and starvation". It has a faint ring of no true Scotsman to it.

You could do worse than look at Jared Diamond's Collapse; that has some good stuff regarding peak wood (though he doesn't label it as such).

Come to Europe, see the horrors Socialism has wrought on the environment. Look at Easter Island where an ism that no longer exists destroyed the ecosystem. I think, in the spirit of the sentiments expressed in your comment, it would be nice to leave the isms out of this.

Quite. Here in the UK the convention is that no Parliament may be bound by its predecessors, with the actual effect that we can change our "constitution" with a simple majority vote in the Commons. Considering the power of the party whips, and the tendency to one-party rule, we do effectively have an elected dictator.

Less so this time round, with the coalition, but even they have shown they can change the constitution with a simple majority vote and are willing to do so without an explicit mandate.

Of course. They don't bring it to your house and demand money with menaces! The Royal Mail is craftier than that; they don't tell you what it is until you pay up.

Here in the UK it's the recipient who normally pays. Every election some idiot candidate sends out leaflets with insufficient payment, so their potential voters have to pay to receive propaganda.

The Pope is German. Not that I think that helps much.

Some of us live in Europe, you insensitive clod!

It's all very well for you to get preachy sitting in a safe western home*. I should imagine the people living in poverty in Asia, Africa, and some parts of South America and Europe would all much rather we put our resources towards giving them a reasonable existence than this my-rocket-car-is-bigger-than-your-rocket-car nonsense.

*Ok, this is an assumption, but you're on Slashdot so it seems a fairly reasonable one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. BBC wheeled out Flight 9 every hour of the airspace closure.

It is an interesting point though. European regulations, intended to stop airlines leaving passengers in the lurch because they over-booked a flight, have made airlines the insurers of last resort for people stranded due to natural disaster. The airlines have incurred a lot of costs, not just on lost business but also on having to pay for accommodation and food for their passengers while they've been stranded. They're also liable for reasonable alternative means of transport. There's a nice summary on the BBC.

While this is nice for passengers, the airlines themselves have no-one to lean on. As this is an act of God, the insurance won't pay out. The government closed the airspace, and is the normal insurer of last resort for natural disasters (see Chile, Haiti etc.). While the summary rags on "greedy airlines", this is not the fault of an airline having mis-judged its margins but an unprecedented restriction on normal business. I think that there is a good case, in moral terms, for at least having the EU refund the costs brought on by passenger rights legislation.

I'm not crticising the government for closing the airspace either, to clarify, I have nowhere near enough knowledge on volcanos or jet engines to form an opinion. I just think that we should note that the airlines have been forced into an uncomfortable, and I think unjust, position.