i keep a photo journal to keep track of what I've taken pictures of, how, and why.

Member since just before Uni, now graduated, a relationship, and a new hobby.

Most petered out, and sometimes the thread topics aren't very conductive to a larger conversation (see; Loaf on the retarded spectrum, Flee on the other side on law and political overloads, not that I'm complaining).

The mid life crisis hitting early eh?

Quote from: Ian on February 01, 2019, 08:00:35 PM

Is there anything preventing the UK from doing the same thing with Japan?

They can make deals with anyone after Brexit.

Yeah, but who would now that we will be out of the largest FTA. What does the UK have that the EU can't already provide, and Japan desperately needs?

Africa is the only one that has shown interest in trade post-Brexit and most of the continent is still developing or have got their resources already under exploitation by themselves or by 3rd parties like Chinese/Russian/European companies (SA, Nigeria, Cameroon, Angola, Zimbabwe, etc), while the UK deals in services, a sector that likely very few will need when it's not connected to a larger economic zone.

Difficult to pinpoint because without the setting and other characters the bits that make them great are gone.

I'm deciding between Phillip J Fry and Jean Luc Picard, but both are virtually polar opposites and neither would do well if their settings were flipped.

I mean there's currently this wizard bloke I'm using as my avatar now but it's because he's hilariously useless character in a comedy.

Tommy or Arthur Shelby would be a good shout too.

I'm not in the know on Brexit, but I thought the entire point of it was to gain independence from EU law. What is the point of "leaving" if the deal you make is just going to keep the country subject to it?

The UK is intrinsically tied to the EU in law, like fishing rights between France and the UK, and in the economy, with over 2/3rds of UK trade being with the EU. Leaving that is essentially impossible, let alone ridiculous as atm they can't trade with anyone outside of the EU on their own. The UK can't afford to lose the trade.

Buuuut since the UK has no bargaining chips and it's 1 country versus 26/27, the UK haven't been very successful in getting what they want, i.e. trade with the EU but being outside of the EU.

Instead the only Brexit deal they have been getting that keeps trade intact is the current proposed and subsequently shot down deal, which is what make the UK a sort of "trading partner" like Switzerland or Norway, that follow the laws of the EU for the trade deals, but have no say in those laws.

And you are correct, why would anyone sign up for that? Remainers point out it's essentially a crap deal to keep ties, and Brexiteers say it doesn't do enough, and both groups are right.

Heard that some MP's are planning to propose a "Norway" Deal to the PM.

Fuck me all you need to see is the news every so often to know that that exact deal was proposed months ago, and declined because:

i) Basically has the UK remain in the EU but in less stature (i.e. no say on EU policy or voting, just like Norway deals with EU laws in return for some minor freedom... in fishery policy or whaling I think? The former reason being off the table for the UK because of its proximity to France/Netherlands and Ireland, and the latter the UK isn't interested in.

ii) The fucking Norwegians said no because it wouldn't be in their own interests a few weeks ago on Euronews (as with all other Nordic countries not directly in the EU, I forgot the abbreviation they have) by having a "Norway" Deal with bits and bobs on the side, that devalues Norway's own deal with the EU, and in turn wouldn't be in the EU's interest to fuck over some countries that want to remain with them than the fuckers here who want to leave.

Sometimes I have sympathy for May, only because a third of her party are a bunch of self serving morons, her slim majority is run by some crazy chest thumping orange-marching bastards, her supporters are varying shades of complete wank, and the opposition aren't doing fuck all either. Currently the only party supporting a 2nd referendum are the the Scottish National Party and their counterparts in Plaid Cymru, essentially hamstrung by their own parties' national identities, and the Lolberal Democrats who I think have <10 seats and are led by god knows who anymore.

Still here every so often; fucked off to everywhere else most likely.

People went off to big wide world or with the friends they made here.

MSI Leopard GP62 6QE;
i7- 6700HQ @2.6GHz
16GB RAM (No idea what, 8GB was added by the company that sold it over the stock model)
GTX 950M 2GB

LG IPS Montior 1080p

Gigaworks T40 Speakers, with Sennheiser PC350SE headset on the right, Some cheapo Sony headphones on the left

Some shitey mouse and keyboard, a cheapy pad cooler that doesn't have a light switch underneath because MSI's heat like a bitch, plus a Minolta Film scanner on the far right for... well, my film.

Runs most things alright except ArmA 3 which flickers somewhere around 25 if you wanna play with decent distances.

Pffffft, alarmist my hole.

The poles are a terrible gauge of measuring Climate Change, as they fluctuate wildly in growth and receding rates so that no discernable pattern can be made. One year they grow, the next they recede and then another year the largest chunk of iceshelf suddenly becomes an iceberg. This happened last year while I was fucking studying it for Glaciology.

But it's not iceshelves or SEA ICE that is the problem...immediately. You see, sea ice is exactly that, it already was sourced FROM the sea, so melting sea ice doesn't contribute to a rise in global sea levels (though a dramatic decrease in reflective white snow and ice and being convert into dark blue heat absorbing water would be a concern, though at that point you'd already have global warming, and would then be concerned with a runaway warming effect that is self sustaining).

Glacier retreats are what should be concerning. LAND ICE melting and returning to the oceans. Iceshelves can act as an anchor or simply a barricade to glaciers, or tied into their existence completely. When the Larson C shelf seceded to becoming A68, the glaciers behind on Antarctica's landmass increased speed, dumping more ice straight into the oceans to melt. It's estimated that when that ice is dumped, it will contribute to global sea levels by 10cm. What's worse, it's increasing speed. On the plus side, this urgency has lead to increased research projects on glaciers across the world, but only because it's predicted we won't have European glacier by the turn of the century.

And finally,this. It's locked behind a paywall so you can only see the abstract unless you've got some uni student login, but it summarised here quite excellently, particularly the chart of glacier about midway through the piece. Now why are glaciers our best study of climate change? Because we've been studying them since the 19th century, with personal accounts and general observations as far back as the late 1700's.

What bugs me more is the short sightedness of that forbes article. If I read it correctly, the Earth will experience a global cooling event - but only for a quarter of a century as the ocean cycle flips... great, we'll have 25 years of returning to slightly lower average temperatures, but nothing I doubt that will get us to pre-industrial levels and everything will be hunky-dory as we justify it to continue using our fossil fuels and ignore greener alternatives. It's fine to accept these short term cycles will affect the global temperature, but it's irrefutable that we have contributed to greenhouse emissions, and that they are linked to global warming.

I don't want to wait-n-see while the next cycle ticks over and then we get a double-dose of warm periods.

• Use his more money than needs to rent/buy a deposit on a house somewhere else (Solves the parents problem)

Plan on saving that mad bank he's got if it isn't immediately doable, and if he can't sustain himself alone on his wage then there's a perfect excuse to just leave that says "I leave because I have to, not because I want to" vibe. Might even be an opportunity to get  a better raise if they really want him there.

• There is no obligation to be loyal to the company (Though America's a bit fucked with the whole capitalism thing, workers rights, etc..., then there's professionalism in general, if the manager's a cunt then there's not much you could do whether he left before or now.).

If he looks for another job right now while still working currently, then he can claim when he leaves that they had better benefits/packages/whatever. Workers can be poached and it's a problem with the company, not the worker if someone else offers a better deal. That's if he really has trouble with just leaving, but it means staying there longer then trying with the first point.

He has no friends at work at all, and they gave him a raise? What does he do? It's hard to console or remedy without a bit more to go on.

It just goes to show talk does better than petrol bombs for unification.

Shame that the talk came from the British side/the DUP, but ah well.

So why is that belief still held today, if the money = power thing isn't regulated to just Jews (e.g. The Catholic Church being one of the richest institutions in the world, whoever the hell is on the Forbes richlist, religions in general not having that much of a grip on daily life or political influence...)?

I've heard about Jewish lobby groups in the US that keep the US' support for Israel, anything related to that sort of thing, etc... Now I don't know if any of that is true, but if the idea of it alone is being spread, why is it that it's just accepted and targetted, and not say... the NRA and their actual lobbying of gun laws, for example. Or any of the other groups that use their money for power today?

Just curious.

Fleeting

Or like "Life is Fleet.inc"

I always thought it would count time leaving it open in a tab.

Hell I have 4 tabs permanently open on my mobile internet while I'm doing sonething else.