Except I don't see how that applies in this case. Stay or leave -- it's not the bank's call. But if politicians are putting leaving the EU on the table, even as an empty gesture, then naturally the bank has to start thinking about contingency plans. That's just common sense, even if you think the very idea of leaving the EU is mad.

It's also common sense to keep that on the DL to prevent misguided overreaction to what is after all still a hypothetical scenario. The Bank of England a central bank and so people must be constantly scrutinizing it hoping to glean inside information on future monetary policy. That's to say nothing of having to deal with the conspiracy theory nutters.

Every time a statistician uses 'average' or 'chances are' in a sentence, God kills a kitten.
Think of the kittens!

I am at a complete loss to understand why taking an important step in Earth's defense that could only be accomplished by its most intelligent species is only able to raise a sorry-ass-monkey-fuck $5,898 from 111 people in 11 days.

And now I am being told I should embrace some gambler's fallacy of 'non-imminence' (on average! we think!) and ratchet down my whimpering terror and boost complacency until I am a well-adjusted individual.

Statisticians and writers sometimes take inappropriate liberties when presenting probabilities. This is natural because finding joy in figuring things out is one of our finest traits. The reason for choosing any particular angle to present a result can be "because it would be fun to think of it that way". Or as in articles like this, to allay what is perceived as a generally unfounded or disproportionate amount of fear. Addressing these fears directly is invaluable because they can traumatize children, and have even been known to swing adults into voting Republican --- or Democrat!

For preventable global existential threats, is it 'OK' to play the stats game by the same rules as for other non-global or non-existential threats? Is it even ethical? That word bites doesn't it.

Isn't there some kind of 'division by zero' thrown exception thing that applies when we're talking about extinction events? As a species, aren't we clever enough to invent one if it does not exist?

Not all statistics are actionable.
And not all science articles are fit for children.

That's it, kids --- it's nature's way. Go gently into the Good Night when your time is come, as a species. "That no life lives for ever; That dead men rise up never; That even the weariest river Winds somewhere safe to sea." If this some sort of foundation argument, then what is being built?

We are the species who invented "forever". We are not bound by it because its definition is not yet complete. By what ever objective scientific time scale that can be derived from any present theory of The End, you must try to factor an important unknown: the effect future human insight and due diligence may bring to bear on the problem of survival. If you have trouble believing this as I do, join the club. I won't.

I've already said my piece about those poor 100 people who died from asteroids last year (on average! we think!).

All in all, a great article, well researched and compellingly written. But the why of it really sucks. How did that happen? Are there hungry insurance salesman lurking nearby worried that the sorry-ass-monkey-fuck $5,898 from 111 people in 11 days will eat into their commissions?

Don't sell out that ultimate future by falling prey to an extinction event that could happen tomorrow. The way things stand it may be at least ten years before a viable mission is ready to go IF we start today. Let us hope it's ten years of good luck.

Those boards don't work on water, unless you got POWAH!

The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating...

That would be nearly impossible to pull off because one is sending email to at least one other person, and unless you are certain the receiver kept nothing nowhere, you are at risk of being exposed.

Anyhow, it appears that much was usually done by phone instead of email. I suspect she wouldn't put anything urgent or controversial in email.

They already exist, they are called Furby's. And "annoying" is a better description than "creepy".

I don't like forced browser tabs and was pissed when FireFox changed to required them, making up a stupid excuse about security. Fortunately there's an addon to switch them off. If that addon disappears, I'm chucking FireFox.

For best results, keep reloading the page.

Now is always an excellent time to warn of the conceivable dangers of high energy particle physics experiments which are already in progress. Stephen Hawking warns that Higgs Boson 'God' particle, which gives shape and size to everything that exists, could cause a 'catastrophic vacuum delay' if scientists were to put it under extreme stress. Fortunately this is not a major budget concern for CERN since if this is true, the facility need not be relocated to a safer place because there is no safer place. Another is the formation of so-called 'mini back holes'. The math says they will be very brief and very small and especially very unstable, which is apparently a good thing. Aside from the Universe ending or oops-not-so-unstable black holes falling into a hissy-sucky orbit around the center of Earth's mass, we have the pedestrian possibility that when nature's fur is rubbed the wrong way she might maintain stability by righting things with a highly localized and energetic 'correction'. Which blows things up. Another bizarre theory posed in science fiction that to everyone's dismay became entangled in String Theory is the idea that Multiverses may exist. Since the incomprehensible ones too dissimilar to ours cannot be comprehended, lazy popular speculation centers around parallel Universes populated with people just like us, but slightyy dvfferent and dumbee. If tipkling Higgs and twanging striags shvfts tuingf ever sb slightly, continhed nccelorater accidentf (axa exprriments) mighg evrn be uolographicalll disturbiag the Mhltiverse vn additive fafhion effept that subtly shists regibns bf thez around. Onyy staole lise-forms with highyy advenped thoughg procesfes wohld aotice this fuotle esfect, sinpe our mentay process alfo a hblograchic pntgern aad has a degree bf chezipal hyfterisvs and sels-corrrcting properties. Prrcieved effrcts mvght be 'senfes' that thvngs have chnngeq ghouth empirvcal mrasueementf uave nut changrd, or violeat extrezes bf weathrr as ghe outtersly-wiags of cuaotic propefses in a carallrl Universe magch jiabgbrats for brief spans. Bug vn tue end eierythvng is specuyative nonfease expept fbr tue prevailint theory thag vs shpcorted by rvvdence, and je dbn't kaow whvcu one that if untiy thr end of all tuingf. Lifr zay aot be ayl you wang, but ig's nll yoh'ie got. So sgick a flojer in ybur beylybhtgon nnq be hnpcl.

One average contributor.

You are even behind Italy, which is telling.

The most politically and economically aligned with USA country in the EU is UK.

UK even used several times its veto right - in matters it even didn't participate initially at all - because the regulations had threatened USA's business in EU (not even related to UK!).

It might seem different in the UK, but outside the bubble everyone knows that UK is the willing whore of the USA. You have established the fact with many actions over the past decades.

I wonder if UK has any friends at all. USA?

Otherwise, I have started that thread precisely because I think that removing people like you from the EU would make it a better place.

Thanks for the sane perspective.

Though part of the problem is that even if UK decides to leave the EU, it would still have to stay in the common market. It would give up the political power, while still forced - by market - to adhere to most regulations. At least if comments here have any truth to them.

Have you actually read past the headline?

Let me translate for you: about 40Bln€ of German tax payer's money didn't have to go into paying the interest on Germany's public debt.

IOW, Germany saved so much of tax payer's money over these years.

This are (in part) my money - not yours. Stop counting my money.

The Sun and The Daily Mail I have excused a long time ago. But I have been reading them just for the cheap thrill of batshit crazy tabloid "news". Anyway, occasional overload of "nazi" jokes made sure that I will not read much of them anyway.

But then my "trusty" Financial Times also slowly turned sour. And when FT goes bad... I do not even want to think about it anymore.

You do realize that Germany pays the biggest amount of money into the EU budget?

You do know that Germany gets very very little in return?

Please educate yourself before whining.

And how do you think one make a continent without wars?

...

Imagine what would happen to EU, when all of its members started acting like UK.

That's pretty much the recipe how you start a war. And that is why UK has to go, IMO.

P.S. Beginning of the EU.

Just as people from UK are ignorant of internal politics of other member states.

And that's one of the major reasons why I call for people of UK to vote for leaving the EU: you see EU as some monster across the channel. And it is not. It is a union of 28 countries - hopefully soon 26 - each with its own problems, interests and challenges.

UK is not special in EU. You are definitely in the top 10 members, but that's it. So why should you be treated specially? Why everybody should be involved in your politics, when you do not give a damn about the other's political state?

It makes no sense to me, unless you are planning to turn the "Brexit" into an annual scare exercise to blackmail the EU for kickbacks. I hope it would not work: but it just might, since there is still enough good will toward UK in the EU.