Ah, I didn't know they'd actually changed. Still, if there's no point (and your link says so) then I'm not sure why you would change the voltage just to be nominally at the correct level, in preference to being technically within the allowed limits.
Uh no, since the year 2000 all of the EU, that includes the UK, runs on 230V.
Uh no, the standard voltage for mains power across the EU is 230V +/- 10%. The UK runs 240V, and still does. The continent runs 220V, and still does. The standard was picked because of EUs love of standards, but everybody knows that practically 220V=240V so they picked half way inbetween, with a tolerance, and called it a day.
So it is good to have them - I agree, I also have this warm fuzzy feeling when I think about all these nukes stationed nearby.
However it seems to me that you did not understand the question - which was : what to do with deterrent if there is nobody to deter?
Given that you don't know that there's not going to be anyone to deter - you can't be sure now and definitely not about 20 years in the future - you keep it. Russia is hardly a benign friend now.
There's a big jump from "thankfully we don't seem to have a need for this anymore" to "we can get rid of them permanently because they will never be useful again"
The UK's deterrent isn't like France's really. The US supplies most of the Trident missile system with the UK putting its own warheads on (I think we still do that, at least we used to make them at Aldermaston). The thing is it's not really an independent deterrent. The UK doesn't need US permission before using it but it's almost totally dependent on US technology to launch and maintain it. Regardless the deterrent was really only design to guarantee that the UK could completely flatten Moscow in the event of Russian aggression against the UK. I'm not too sure such a capability is all that relevant any more.
Thing is, *is* that the only requirement, and is it going to be the requirement in 20 years, 40 years? I can't say, of course nobody can, so I'd rather keep it.
The whole currency exchange actually increased the share of the "Yes" vote. The whole patronising attitude of the Westminster parties had the opposite to intended effect.
Course it's quite hard not to be patronising to an opponent who seems to think currency union will happen because he wishes it, even though the other party in the union has said that it won't.
It could do that fine from North England. The problem is there just isn't a good place for a sub pen in England. Scotland meanwhile has loads of deep tidal water safely tucked miles from coast.
Don't start using actual practical reality now when we can hand wave apparent Westminster anti-Scottishness!
Thing is, the UK parties hate, hate, hate the thought of secession. So if they think being uncooperative on the pound will help scare Scots to stay in the union, they'll do that.
But once secession is a fact, that posturing will likely be dropped. UK is probably better served with Scotland staying with the pound than switching to the Euro.
Why? We've *just*... *just* seen how badly a currency union without political union can go in the (ongoing) Euro crisis. Why do you think that's a good idea suddenly now, especially when the direction of integration is going in the wrong direction, towards more divergence. You can't have successful monetary union without shared fiscal policy, and why would Scotland want that after all the effort of independence?
The americans have enough already
Ultimately, yes, because you can't expect another country, even a close ally, to risk nuclear war for you. The UK can't guarantee that the States would retaliate if necessary, especially since they would be bringing likely retaliation, and millions of American citizens deaths, on themselves. Nuclear warheads suck, but once you have them you damn well keep them, otherwise the deterrent doesn't work.
All Google has to do is dump that stupid steaming pile called ChromeOS, and admit that Android wins.
"Then that would make you bisexual."
You talk as if you know me. You're sorely, sorely mistaken. I've fucked herms and trans people before, so that doesn't make me bisexual, by any means. In fact, that pretty much puts me into pansexual territory. I CHOOSE TO LIVE MY LIFE WITH A MAN. Key word - *CHOOSE*
Fair enough, pansexual. However few people *choose* who they're attracted to, and you shouldn't assume that other people can simply because you seem to be able to.
I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.
I'm fairly sure you have never been at the mercy of the trolls of the internet. Much of what is posted under the anonymous cover is extremely upsetting, abusive and threatening, and it's about time we stopped giving it a pass under 'free speech' cover.
Sure, they didn't choose it, but why can't I dislike it? I should have the freedom to like or hate a person for anyreason, including stupid ones like race. Now to say gays don't deserve basic rights, that's a different story. But I shouldn't be forced to hire them or make them my friends. If I don't hire someone because he is gay and he turned out to be a better worker, my business' loss.
Ideally though, keep your sexual orientation to yourself. This also goes for the guys at work bragging about picking up chicks at a bar like a frat boy. Keep that stuff out of the office please.
And I don't hate gays, but I would defend a business' choice not to hire because the job seeker is gay. As I said before, their loss. And if the job seeker is dumb enough to advertise that in the interview, he is a moron. Of course America is now so PC that doing so is illegal, which is a serious problem, but don't get me too off topic about that.
This is all great and fine, right up until you are in a category of people that are systematically discriminated against. Sometimes (and I know this is controversial) the market cannot fix everything. People should not have to hide who they are to get a job. There is a difference between inappropriate frattishness and pretending you are asexual or straight to try not upset someone who is sensitive, and has power over you.
"Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change."
I sure as fuck chose my lifestyle, thanks. Three bad engagements to women, and I made up my mind to date men after that.
What nonsense are you on about?
Then that would make you bisexual. Not everyone is. Are you unable to conceive of someone who has different sexual preferences to you?
May I ask what you are laughing about?
Since the USA have installed listening breaks in international undersea cables, I'd guess he laughing at the naivety of the original statement.
[...] but given China's track record with censorship and privacy, the explanation rings hollow for some skeptics.[...]
Given the United State's track record, I think the skeptics should worry about data collection at home too.
Why always focus on China when it comes to human rights and privacy issues? Just look at your own navel for a change...
Does every slashdot article have to come back to trashing the USA these days?
Don't ou think it's kindof relevent? Given they're talking about privacy of data, and the other option for storing would be in the States? Mm?