Why can we remove network costs and VAT from calculations? Removing them only supports my argument - they both become representative of costs which were hidden from the end price charged to the consumer.

And other costs subsidised includes the UK coal and natural gas industry, which was costing the Treasury billions in subsidisation as coal and natural gas purchased from abroad was cheaper and easier - but then we get into the thorny topic of Thatcher...

Inflated wholesale? You mean the market that Ofgem has said there is plenty of competition in and is working fine?

Network costs are pretty much the same for every energy company, since both the gas and electricity networks are independent of the generation and consumption side of the business, so no energy company can inflate their costs there...

What you seem to have missed from my original point is that I specifically said "on residential business". EDF made money last year from its commercial business (selling to high consumption businesses) and selling power from its generation side to the grid.

If they lose money in the residential market, why shouldn't residential rates go up? That was the point of the post I replied to - rates going up.

So anyone not agreeing with your ideology is a sociopath? Don't you get the irony in that?

The OP you mention is actually the FSF.

It doesn't change much but its pretty easy to get access to the Windows codebase if you work at a university, and you can submit bug fixes.

The difference between Savage Rabbits post and the FSFs statement is that the above post isn't a blanket one.

The fact that its a blanket statement makes it inaccurate, when I can use and contribute to Katana, Kudu, Entity Framework, Asp.Net MVC, Helios, WebAPI, vNext and a host of other things on the MS side, or LLVM and others on the Apple side. Microsoft support of open source is the same as Gnu and FSF - they both support their own pet things and ignore hosts of other things.

Patent license revenue is entirely an aside to this and has fuck all to do with the point at hand. Just because you are an open source project doesn't make you above patent law.

I'd be interested to hear why the down modder thinks my points above are trolling. Can you actually defend the FSF statement as written? Is it not a poor and flawed blanket statement? What are your arguments in support of it? Or did I just hit a nerve?

Everyone using Bash has the freedom to download, inspect, and modify the code -- unlike with Microsoft, Apple, or other proprietary software.

This comes across as scaremongering, as its a blanket statement professing the openness of bash compared specifically to Microsoft and Apple, while both those companies have huge collections of open source projects where I can do just what they are trumpeting with Bash and the GPL.

Its a perfect example of why blanket statements should be studied very carefully before being used, as it can just distort your perceived stance when people call you on the flaws of your statement.

That's because energy companies in the UK struggle to make a profit on residential business - take the bill I have in front of me from EDF Energy, it breaks down the £57.85 charge for gas and electric covering the period of 01/08/2014 to 08/09/2014 as follows:

Electricity: 5% VAT, 12% Environmental and social obligations, 17% Operating costs, 24% Network costs, 42% Wholesale costs, 0% Profit.

Gas: 5% VAT, 5% Environmental and social obligations, 16% Operating costs, 20% Network costs, 54% Wholesale costs, 0% Profit.

Their electricity sources are broken down as: 17% coal, 73.7% nuclear, 8.3% renewable, 1% other.

What people fail to realise (or just outright ignore) about pre-privatisation is that the costs were hidden and subsidised by the Treasury.

Or just houses - shacks and the like. You think shanty towns have planning permission or generate property taxes...?

I didn't ask any question, but feel free to not check who posted what before you make stupid posts...

And this is what is wrong with the US medical system - in my country I can call an ambulance every day of the week for as long as I want and one would attend me each and every time at no charge to me at all. Of course the NHS would take legal action after a few weeks if the calls aren't justified, but they can't charge me or refuse to attend...

Yup, he read an unproven and unsubstantiated allegation...

I'm afraid you have fallen in Salmonds trap - debt and currency are two entirely separate things, they are not linked in any manner and while Scotland can *refuse* to take its share of debt, that refusal is not automatic based on not taking the currency.

A countries debt is denominated in the currency that country uses, but its not linked to it in any other way.

If Scotland do refuse to take its share, then it will have a poorer credit rating on the international funds markets because of it.

No, what the Treasury did was confirm that the entirety of the debt was safe, it would be serviced by the UK even in the event that Scotland refused to take its share - they did this because it eliminated pre-referendum uncertainty about the financial situation, and prevented pre-emptive financial issues surrounding borrowing rates when lenders refuse to lend to the pre-referendum UK on the basis that it may not get its money back.

Again you have fallen into Salmonds trap by accepting his statements at face value - the UK just guaranteed the entirety of the debt, but that doesn't have any standing as to exonerating Scotland from its share when it comes to post-referendum negotiations. This isn't the school yard here.