coprolite

Union ballots need turnout above a certain % to be valid. If people join a union there is a moral obligation on them to participate in that union that comes from them having agreed to act as part of a collective. Having tried with reducing success to recruit union members and persuade them to take an active role, I'm unsurprised that people don't get this. Being an active part of a collective just doesn't fit with the mindset of increasing numbers of people. Individualism is ok up to a point, but it's a masterstroke of divide and conquer for the benefit of capitalism to have it as the only value that matters.

If the main concern is what's achievable, why not give up on indy? Absolute shitshow of eton-centric corruption for the last few years has barely moved the needle on the polls.

The Bbc story on this includes ""It is understood that reporting restrictions on BBC journalists have been lifted by the Glasgow club." So it looks like Rangers might also have backed down? Albeit no apology for their unjustified bullying and restriction of trade. It's another layer of pathetic that the BBC goes with an unattibuted "it is understood...". If only there was some organisation that was party to the resolution of the dispute that the BBC's Scottish football reporting team could approach for direct confirmation. Nothing less than Chris McGlaughlin interviewing players in front of a burning union flag, wearing a Cinch cap while a hanged effigy of the queen swings past the camera will placate me now.

Shat it Nice to see all the P&B orcs mindlessly behind their disgrace of a club.

Loving the idea of a radical group taking direct action by lodging planning objections in suburbia.

There's a decent short film on Iceland's facilities that was on A view from the terrace. I'd post a link but i've already seen it and can't be arsed.

"incomparable Boris" "... He crushed his puny critics with his customary wit and eloquence..." I clearly inhabit another universe from these people.

The ability to explain sudden shifts in the past can help test assumptions and relationships between variables within the model and is an integral part of actually calibrating the models. Getting effective vaccines out within two years of a new disrase showing up has really shown scientists up to be incompetent buffoons.

Pfft. They just make it up.

I didn't say the model could explain things, i said it could account for them. Fortunately most people working with models understand their limitations and how to use them in science.

Ok. A prediction based on juju, like a horoscope. A prediction based on weighing up what you perceive as relevant evidence subjectively, like pundits predicting the football scores. A prediction based on experience, such drinking a bottle of wine and expecting to become drunk. An axiomatic prediction. 1+1=2. Good people will go to heaven. A scientific prediction. Such as predicting that certain swirly patterns will appear on expensive kit because the Higgs boson exists. I think you would be safe to make that argument. You'd be wrong likes but stats nerds aren't going to batter you.

There are many types of prediction of which forecasting (modelling based on past data) is one. Not all predictions are forecasts. All forecasts are predictions. (apparently, still sore about this tbh).

It was always too late for Craig Storie. H**c**t.

They also take fitness and sports science seriously over there despite the size of the clubs. Excellent loan destination for any youngster with wayward tendencies.

I'll take that predicting v forecasting thing as it was only me that said it. My understanding was that a prediction was a statement about what would happen but a forecast was about the probabilities of what might happen. It appears that no-one else has ever heard of that distinction so i'll concede that i got that wrong. They're not exactly the same though. Forecast is a subset of prediction.

Strong historical links with Jim Bett and erm Halur Hanson?

Can't be long before he joins the dots with the whole Jimmy Saville thing. Is Bojo Q?

Owned by Robert and Jane MacGeachy, who appear to be also involved with this lot https://www.camphillscotland.org.uk/author/robert-mcgeachy/

The two charts show the exact same thing. Yes, the models can account for those fluctuations. The question is whether the explanations derived from those models is correct. Given that the models currently in use can account for many different fluctuations over millions of years using the same variables then the chance of them being wildly wrong retrospectively is negligible. Obviously AGW is just a theory, but it's a theory like gravity or evolution by natural selection which is generally accepted and supported by a large body of evidence. The power of the model to predict an exact future state and the exact path to that future state is more limited. That's why the scientists will usually report in terms of confidence intervals. There is wide consensus that the temperature will continue to rise because of human CO2 emissions and that rise won't be insignificant. The local effects of that and the effect on any given day are far more difficult to say. Gambling your entire economic policy on the infinitesimal chance that all climate scientists but 2 are wrong would be the high risk option here. There is plenty of room for debate as to whether trying to curb emissions is an effective strategy or whether mitigation is the way forward. Absolutely baffled by your final tin foil hat assertion though. Less money to be made through continuing to burn fossil fuels is an absolute zinger.

They're paid considerably less than UK staff but at the top of the local market range (apparently - i'm not involved in that bit). It's a bit odd having people on the team who are never in the office, but as ~95% of meetings are VCs now it doesn't make that much difference.

Costs less to put the windows down. Plus out of the three cars i' ve had with AC, it's only worked in one.

Yes, it's Manilla. We're not sending people there though. We're remotely emoying Phlilpinos to do UK work. There's a bit of a skills gap but the work ethic is amazing.

If you're talking cultural left/ right, you're probably correct. If you're talking economic left/right, there's barely any "left" still standing.

I didn't know who that was but that's a pretty notorious company name. They employed people but didn't enter into employment contracts and treated them as self empmoyed to avoid giving them sick pay, holidays, expenses etc. A tribunal found against them. Sounds like the sort of person who should be dispensing advice on employee's rights right enough.