Recent posts by vikaTae on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

If the country just plain overall sucks and can’t sustain much of a population, perhaps there should be less population …. eh? Why have children if they are going to be born into hunger & pestilence? Is that what good parenting comes to? That is where I get my idea of some form of birth control. Why think such is a bad thing when hunger, war, & pestilence is doing its own brand of controlling?

In many ways, this overcrowding is actually the result of first world help in the third world.

In the third world, families usually have lots of children, to increase the chance that some of them will make it to adulthood and live long enough to have children of their own. In third world countries, your child surviving to adulthood is by no means certain.

This graphic was taken from the World Health Organisation’s 2010 report on attempts to reduce child mortality. It shows the percentages, but the numbers used to be much, much higher.

Pre industrial revolution it was like this for the 1st world countries too: families had lots of children because many would not survive to adulthood.

However, as living conditions improved and access to healthcare and sanitation improved, the death rates fell, and, over time, families began to have less and less children, as there was no-longer the necessity of creating backup offspring. The first child was very likely to survive to breed, so family sizes of 1, 2, or 3 children became the norm rather than 10-18 children.

In the third world, however, the first world has come along and elevated large parts of it all at once, using modern methods. This of course saves many lives, and many more now survive to breed. However, the cultural impact of that hasn’t yet sunk in, and families are still having as many kids as they can sustain, because that’s the way it’s always been, and the way their parents did it. And their parets’ parents, and their parents parents parents, and so on.

Multiple generations are still alive who have witnessed their own kids dying of what we would consider easily preventable diseases, so they’re urging the new generation to have as many kids as they can to offset the worry of some dying.

Only, they’re not dying, not in the numbers they used to. It will take generations for the concept to sink in that families don’t have to pump out as many kids as possible to ensure some survive. So, as the first world’s mercy missions and projects increase the standards of living and decrease the mortality rate, there is a population explosion in these countries, simply because the cultural gestalt hasn’t changed at nearly the same rate.


Image: Contrasting the population growth of a country that has had a relatively high standard of living that has developed in-situ over generations (the US) versus a third world country that has had it’s infant and child mortality rate drastically cut back by health technologies developed in other societies, transplanted in, in one go (Mexico).

The pyramid shape of the mexican sample is standard for all third world and undeveloped societies – the children swiftly die off and successively fewer advance to each age bracket. However, if the children are no-longer dying off, you get an exponential growth pyramid where each generation still produces vast numbers of children but they don’t die off, so the pyramid gets wider and wider, almost without end.

It only stops widening when there aren’t enough resources left in the home country to support everyone any more. Then you get a collapse and mass migration of refugees to find a new home. There, they will continue to breed like rabbits for generations, until slowly, bit by bit, it sinks into each successive generation that they don’t have to do that any more. It is a very slow process, and is only just beginning to occur in the elevated third world states.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / American Conservatism versus the world.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Americans have always been and independent people. That is why we removed ourselves from England’s rule.

Actually it was taxation without representation that was the problem, which is a completely different issue.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by jhco50:

Severely wrong with me? LOL You are the one who lives in England

If I live in England, then you live in Canada. Seriously, Jhco, you’ve been told this around 20 times. Scotland is not England, anymore than Canada is the same country as the USA. There are strong links, and we’re aligned, but that doesn’t make us the same country.

yet wants to tell us what to do over here. Hypocrisy 101.

Yes, holding US citizenship and desiring input in the US voting process is clearly hypocracy. Clearly.

Any other words of unwisdom for us, oh clueless one?


Originally posted by sanii:

Heh. We have us some NDP (socialists) in Canada, and we seem to be doing fine. All your American freedom don’t help you one bit if you:

- get shot by a cop

-government sues your cash

-need healthcare

America no longer needs to fight communists. The cold war is over. You won. Being stuck in a cold war mentality is holding the united states back from the level of progress achieved by both your northern neighbor, and those across the pond.

Couldn’t agree more.

Ironically institutions like the police force, refuse collection, the water and sewage networks, and public schooling in the US are socialist concepts, and Jhco never comes here to froth at the mouth as to how the police are evil socialists, or how all the public schools should be closed down because they’re a ‘lefty’ idea the US doesn’t need.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

The worry with the EU countries is, though we can each take some refugees, and there’s no doubt we each will, none of the EU countries can take all of them. I doubt the union as a whole could take all of them. But they are still going to come. The ones we accept across our borders are one thing, but the ones we can’t take? They’re going to try and sneak across somehow anyway.

If any of our countries absorb too many refugees that way, it will be too much of a burden for our essential services to cope with. They’ll still try: people are people after all, and most wish to help. But the sheer numbers we’re looking at will be too much.

The very real danger is that in the process of trying to help, our infrastructures will collapse, and everyone both refugee and native alike will be in a situation not very different from the ones the refugees were fleeing from.

We have to be realistic about this. We will require strategies for keeping the masses out of Europe. That may mean UN relief packages to the affected areas. It may mean setting up isolated camps with their own infrastructure to house every illegal we find. It may even mean the EU going to war with various regimes in N. Africa to stop the bloodshed by force, and make things better for those living in those countries that way.

If all else fails, using warships to sink the ships transporting them illicitly across the Med, is not off the table. It may come to that. I’d rather it didn’t, but pragmatically that’s an option we cannot afford to discard.

 

On a different subject:

This suggestion was more for a longer-term solution to the root cause of our human woes. The means I mention will need to be a huge leap from the computation of data that we currently have. BUT, the essence is the same: put in ALL of known history; the wars, the peace, the ups, the downs, ALL OF IT.

Oh I fully realise that. What you’re proposing is far beyond our capabilities now anyway. But I can see where it’s going. I was looking at it as in using the raw power of computers combined with a solid interface. Actively integrating the computer into the head of the decision-maker. Not necessarily physically, but giving their mind the ability to comprehend this enormously complex data through the filter of the computer system, its ability to simulate the cascading nature of changes by mapping out the possibilities, even heuristically selecting what it thinks are optimal paths to take, and presenting that data in the mind’s eye in a way that the person’s brain can most easily identify with and accept.

The policy maker is still in charge, not the computer system. It only exists to make the horendously complex datasets and their relationships to one another possible to visualise and manipulate. Makes them managable for the human mind by expanding the capabilities of that mind with itself, only when it is required to be.

The interface between the human and the computer system is key here. Absolutely key. The computer provides a secondary memory store, a multichannel visualisation system, and offers all the possibilities to the decicion maker or makers. But at the end of the day it stays a tool, and they are the ones to make the decisions. The computer doesn’t do that part.

HCI not CHI. (Human-Computer Interface, as opposed to Computer-Human Interface)

Anyway, this is all getting off topic to the thread, which is mostly addressed in the first part of my post above. I mention it only because you’ve given my mind a lot of brainfood Karma, and it’s a possibility I will unfold further, in my own time. Might even get a couple of papers out of it :)

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Could it be Pete, that different countries are set up different ways? That all countries are not the same as the USA?

I believe that was Karma’s point before; that applying US-centric thinking to other societies, is not always a good idea, simply because other societies often function in different ways.

I’m not trying to be nasty here, but the difference in the way different countries do things is something you should keep in mind, and it doesn’t come across that you are keeping it in mind.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

If that were true, why are Aldi and Lidl the cheapest supermarkets in the country? Both are aimed mainly at those with less income. Asda is similar (though it is now owned by Walmart, it is still bound by government regulations on minimum quality) Pound-stretcher, and poundworld are the same, and the proliferation of shops where ‘everything is £1’ likewise.

Compare that to Waitrose, which is a supermarket for those with ‘status’ and you’ll soon see the difference in price – Waitrose charges more.

Even the more ‘middle class’ shopping centers like Tesco, or Morrisons charge more for their goods than those national chains aimed squarely at those with less (or no) disposable income.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by thijser:

And why would such a system need a dirrect neural connection?

To ensure that the best possible interface is used, and the brain is capable of taking the output and processing it like direct sensory information, knowing it at a fundamental level. Would help immensely to utilise the brain’s own internal mechanisms for dealing with such data.

The policy maker takes the output data and literally makes it their own.

(I can only imagen the headache that would cause).

The headaches are just that – imaginary. No nociceptors in the brain. No thermoceptors either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

The conversation in this thread seems—at least to me—to presume that immigration is a net negative.

In small amounts, and as a way to bring skilled workers into the country, it’s a positive.

However bringing in far more than you can cope with is a net negative. Especially when you’re close to the limit of what you can provide for to begin with.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The next President Clinton

Originally posted by jhco50:

Lets vote liberal even though Washington wants to dictate what we eat or what color we crap.

You should be crapping brown. If you’re not, go to hospital. Go to hospital now. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

There’s something severely wrong with you, that requires urgent medical attention!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I did some thinking out of the box and suggested using a super computer … at least for making an assessment and rendering what would possibly be viewed as some good advice—a “second opinion” if you will.

I originally dismissed this, as any expert system no matter how intelligent and capable, would ultimately likely have its solution be dismissed as irrelevant by the human politicians ultimately in charge.

However, rethinking it, I think you’re referring to big data solutions, rather than a single expert system that analyses all the data and then gives our leaders the results. Rather it would concentrate on aggregating the data, finding the trends and displaying the results in a way that make sense to the human mind, serving as a secondary processing center to the decision maker’s own brain.

It would be complex, and likely would require a direct neural-connection to be truly efficient, but yes, it could work well Karma, to basically increase the cognitive capability of our leaders, to the point where they actually could comprehend the scale of the problem.


EDIT: I’ll give this some further thought, and let it percolate in my brain for a bit; see if I can come up with a feasable way such a system could actually work from a practical standpoint.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

It’s not just housing.

  • The health system is currently strained past breaking point
  • The social care system has basically collapsed
  • The police force has been paired back to the bone and faces further cuts
  • The military has been paired back to the bone and faces further cuts
  • The economy is still in a shambles and the government have been fiddling the books to hide’ unemployment figures, or use employment methods that don’t guarantee income

We’re deluged with problems at the moment, most of which have a lack of resources at their core. We haven’t got the resources to deal with those already here, especially the poorer sections of the community.

There’s no slack in the system to take on another country’s citizens in any sizable numbers. Literally no slack at all.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

What I still don’t understand is what the specific impact is of the (insert mind-boggling number here) of illegal immigrants may actually have on current housing’s capacity. Are you claiming that there are not enough places to live now with UK’s current population?

Correct. The poor are hit hardest by far, as it’s cheap, affordable housing that is by far the most heavily strained. The same type of housing that refugees would be housed in.

Have you been to San Francisco lately? Is it worse than that? If so, God Help You.

Never been there. But if it’s bad, then surely if you shoved a quarter of a million new residents into that city, it would make the situation all-better. Right?

Karma, unemployment in the UK is lowering and the economy is improving

Zero hours contracts account for the lion’s share of new jobs created in the past few years. A zero-hour contract means exactly that: You are guaranteed ZERO hours of paid work from week to week. Some weeks you may get no work, some weeks you may get some, but no guarantees on how much. Whilst you’re working on a zero hours contract job, you don’t qualify for state support. State support won’t be paid for you if they can find a job for you – including zero hours contract jobs.

So no, the economy isn’t doing all that well, and most of the recovery is simply political spin-doctoring.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

As I pointed out earlier—ad nauseam—linking your problems of police and housing shortages and crappy sewage and infrastructure and whatever to immigration is the same language that right-wing shitwads use to promote their anti-immigration bullshit agenda.

It’s not bullshit if it’s based on stone cold fact, like mine are. We haven’t got the room for a flood of illegals, a flood of millions of refugees, or any other type of human flood. We haven’t got the services to deal with the normal influx, or cope with the numbers being born.

Trying to suddenly demand many times more work out of out of the same cash-strapped and severely struggling services would be disasterous.

Are illegal immigrants stealing your nation’s bricks? What’s the connection.

Ok, read this very carefully:

  • Bricks, along with mortar, cement, uPVC, slate, wiring, and a lot of other materials are used to build houses.
  • Houses are what people live in. Without a house, they have nowhere to live, except maybe a car, or a vastly overcrowded and underfunded homeless shelter.
  • We cannot build more homeless shelters because like houses they are made of bricks, and mortar, and cement, and a lot of other materials.
  • We do not have enough houses for everyone who is currently living in this country. Nowhere near, and have not been building enough to keep up with demand for years.
  • If a large number of people flood into the country in short order, we have nowhere to put them.
  • We cannot build more places because there are no materials to speed up construction any more. Construction is already far below need.
  • Adding more people will make the need worse
  • Making the need worse will increase the need for houses.
  • Bricks, along with mortar, cement, uPVC, slate, wiring, and a lot of other materials are used to build houses.
  • Houses are what people live in. Without a house, they have nowhere to live, except maybe a car, or a vastly overcrowded and underfunded homeless shelter.
  • We cannot build more homeless shelters because like houses they are made of bricks, and mortar, and cement, and a lot of other materials.
  • Without these materials, the number of houses and shelters will not increase any faster than they are being built now
  • They are already being buit far below need.
  • It is not possible to build any faster than they are being built now, for a variety of very real, very concrete scarcity factors.
  • Thus, adding a large number of new people into the country will result in:
    a: All of them going unhoused, living in the street
    b: Some of them going unhoused, and some existing families on the waiting list being denied a house to make room
    c: All of them being housed, and existing resident families being evicted onto the street to make room.

Is it clear now how supply problems and shortfalls will be made worse by a large influx of new people?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Case in point: Vika’s link to a problem meeting housing demand. Even a child would understand that demand drives price and creates jobs.

Well done. You’ve worked out the problem. Large demand plus limited supply does indeed mean the price goes up. So far up in fact, that the poorest citizens cannot afford the rent. Hence we have families living in cars, and other madness.

Also, as I’ve pointed out a few times now, the government is in full-on austerity mode. Every service is crying out for more money. There’s an £8,000,000,000 per annum shortfall in the health system right now, because social services were cut right back to the bone and beyond. The health service has had to step up and meet the vastly increased rate of sickness that followed, and it cannot cope with existing resources.

That £8 billion pounds (about $12.5 billion dollars) isn’t coming, because the government has no money to spare.

So, how’s the government going to afford the cost of purchasing/renting all the homes for these refugees to live in, so they have a roof over their heads? They’re building more as fast as they can given the restraints they’ve got to deal with (as I outlined in my earlier links), and the money’s not there to build more. The material’s not there. There’s a national shortage of basic materials like bricks. There’s a chronic shortage of the highly trained personnel we need,
not enough money to pay for more. The building firms are struggling themselves. There’s a chronic shortage of land to build houses on that isn’t vitally needed for something else, or earmarked for conservation, or simply unsafe to build on.

There are no easy answers.


N.b.: Appologies to everyone for the frequent use of bold. I’m well aware it draws the eye, and makes a passage harder to read. But, I’m out of ideas here as to how to get the salient points across without drawing the eye.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Tell me, where in the various cities of immigration-hosting are they going to house huge numbers of immigrants? How are they going to control the immigration process when it can be so easy for them to “slip away” to seek venues more to their liking as far as integration into that society goes? Crime is a huge temptation.

Building on the above:

Especially in the case of the UK, where as I pointed out before, the UK cannot build enough homes for the poor now. As that link shows (and goes into great detail on), there has been a housing shortage for many years. We’re not building enough houses for our own people. There’s a shortage of land, a shortage of skilled labor, and a shortage of materials. Where are the houses for these refugees to come from, Pete? We cannot even house all who are already here!

The UK police again as I said earlier are being cut by 20%, that’s on TOP of existing cuts that have paired things down to the bone already. How is the inevitable crime going to be managed when the police forces are stretched thin already, and the military is being pruned to the bone for the same reason – lack of money. How are we to manage the increases in crime from individuals in large numbers who have lost everything, and have nothing left to lose? We can’t house them, we might be able to feed them, and the NHS is still recovering from its worst winter on record, so we certainly cannot take care of them. Crime is their only viable means of providing for themselves – there are no jobs available.

On top of all that lot, there’s a funnel effect in Europe. Everyone passes their problem immigrants onto the next country, and the next, and the next. It means the UK (joy oh joy) gets funnelled a lot of those refugees that have reached western Europe. They fill up Calais in France, and try to sneak into the UK on a daily basis, often by hiding in trucks, or being ferried across in human trafficing boats.

The UK has nobody to pass the refugees on to. It’s only water and Eire to the west of us. So they all funnel into Britain. What’s the solution?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

However, I accept that I have claimed that you and Karma (and Beauval, it appears) rely on a fundamental principle that whatever diaspora you’re describing… 260-million? Really!?

Yup. Approx 65% of the total population of the country, all ariving within a few months of one another. That is the REALITY that the UK faces as per the linked files the figure came from. One European country faces a 235% increase in its population. How would the US handle 940 million people arriving as refugees in overcrowded boats, within a few months of each other?

Think it would be able to cope?

That’s the situation we’re talking about pro rata when the number of refugees pouring in from wartorn regions is set to be more than half of a country’s existing population, or even more than double that population.

There’s no way the existing infrastructure would be able to cope with that, no matter how much wishful thinking you try to send its way. Pretty soon the ‘rescuing’ country is in serious trouble as its infrastructure has completely collapsed under the burden, and both the refugees and the original population are dying left, right and center. Dyssentry in the streets, cholera in the water, rampant crime without the resources to combat it, and unending suffering.

It’s what happens when you don’t take logistics into account and you pile far more people into the system than it can hold, in a very short period of time.

EDIT:

I was talking about immigration policy and public discourse. That’s obviously a different topic and one that nobody else here seems interested in. That’s okay with me.

Now go back and actually READ the OP. This whole thread’s about the impending doom facing Europe from a refugee and illegal immigrant crisis that is already beginning to happen. If you wish to force the discussion into something completely off-topic, as you clearly do, I suggest you take it elsewhere.

Several of you are proposing “solutions” like birth control and camps that can isolate and concentrate these populations.

If by ‘several of you’ you mean petesahooligan then yes, petesahooligan does keep bringing up these weird claims of birth control againet potential immigrants. He seems fascinated with the subject. God only knows why. After all he’s literally the ONLY ONE to keep bringing it up and harp on about it.

The camps werre a valid possibility, as countries are literally facing huge numbers of potential refugees, then if they do come, settting up camps where they can be treated as best as possible is likely going to be the only feasable way to deal with the huge numbers involved. It keeps the systems of the supporting country from getting swamped, and gives one centralised place for aid to arrive.

The camps are a very good idea.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Vika, you have grossly distorted my position.

I’ve put out the benefits of accommodating new immigrants into a community, I’ve enumerated those benefits, I’ve dispelled the fears that you are reintroducing to the conversation.

You dispelled nothing. I’m ‘reintroducing’ them, because you have steadfastly ignored them or dismissed them as not valid claims. Logistics is a very valid issue, and whilst I accept you would like to live in aworld where logistics is not a problem, sadly that is not the world we actually live in. We have to actually address these issues if we are to seek a solution.

I state again, you’ve been claiming that immigration isn’t a problem, and that we have a ‘duty’ to rescue all who wish to enter and house them in our countries. So I ask you again, how would the US cope if tomorrow there were 260,000,000 additional citizens, all fresh off the boat from other countries, precious few spoke English, were in various degrees of poor health and malnutrition, and all expected to become residents of the US.

How would you deal with the problem? You keep climing it’s an economic boon to bring these immigrants in, but keep right on skipping the actual details of how this could be managed.

I’ll remind you I derived the 260 million figure as a percentage of the US’ current population. The same percentage of potential immigrants (mostly illegal) versus total current population the UK faced dealing with as of five year old data. We could up it to 600,000,000 if you like, which might be more realistic to the current situation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Well, it’s a good thing nobody is proposing uncontrolled illegal immigration! What a disaster that would be.

‘Controlled’ illegal immigration like you’ve been advocating all thread would also be a horendous thing. Say you wake up one morning Pete, and find the population of your town has quadrupled overnight. Would you welcome all these people with open arms, and close down the schools, the hospitals, and police stations to give them temporary housing? Push for laws that every citizen must share their homes with an immigrant family?

You keep on and on about how just opening the floodgates and letting everyone pour on through would be a good thing, but you seem unwilling to offer suggestions on how that could be practically managed.

As far as I could tell, Beauval was talking about immigration. Illegal immigration is a category, but it’s not the whole. Most UK immigrants are legal, of course… just like in the United States.

The problem beauval was addressing in his OP was the masses of illegals crossing the Med, and how the holy hell Europe can deal with them. We’ve got a major catastrophe in the making with what’s going on in northern Africa at the moment.

I’m not sure if anyone is suggesting “rounding them up and deporting them”

It’s how we handle illegals now. You come into the country illegally? Once we work out where you came from, you’re on the first flight back there.

I’m not sure how the problems that are being suggested here are isolated solely to “illegal” immigration.

Mass migration of illegals is the only way you can find your population doubling or trippling practically overnight. As a previous poster pointed out, the potential is for a 65% increase in UK population, as of five years ago – before this current set of problems started up. How would America cope with 260 million people arriving within a few months? It’s the same percentage increase we’re talking about. According to everything you’ve said so far, it would be a good thing, right? America could integrate those 260 million easily, with no problems whatsoever, right?

What difference does it make to “housing” and “jobs” if the immigration is legal or not?

If the immigration is legal, the country knows how many are coming in and what their skills are. They’re aware the immigrants meet minimum standards in understanding the native language. The immigrants pay taxes on their earnings, which helps the country prosper.

If the immigrants are illegal then the country doesn’t know how many are coming, they have no idea what the immigrants skills are if any, and the immigrants have no obligation to understand local language or be able to integrate with their new nation. The immigrants don’t pay taxes on their earnings, but continue to use the services of the country, creating a net drain on government finances, and in large numbers, overburdoning services.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

• The English are increasingly becoming socially conservative (See also UKIP and Tea Party and Gaggle of Assholes)

Tea Party is an American political association, not a British one. They have no part in British politics.

UKIP’s something of a joke party, but yes they are hard-right. Almost level with the US Democrats. The Conservative party runs the country at the moment, in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but the conservative policies they’ve been pursuing are deeply unpopular in the country, and I truly doubt they will still be in power in a week and a half’s time.

• Most immigrants to the UK are EU nationals
• Most people emigrate for financial reasons
• People seeking asylum in the UK are at the same levels as they were five years ago

Irrelevant to the discussion. The problem is not with legal immigration, but illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is done on the quiet, without clearing things with the government first, or following legal procedures of any type.

• As expected, people with higher education saw immigration more favorably than others (because they’re smarter, yo!)

Most also realise that you can have too much of ‘a good thing’, and that uncontrolled illegal immigration will be very, very bad for the country, from the costs involved in rounding them up assessing and deporting them, to the costs on the country’s infrastructure from having to house and feed them if there’s nowhere to deport them back to without violating their human rights.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Give me your tired, your poor

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

See? This is kind of what I’m talking about. The “housing shortage” is the kind of argument that the British Nutjob Party makes when advocating for stricter immigration control.

Unfortunately it’s also cold, hard, fact.

There are not enough houses for everyone already living here, and the quotas for new houses to be built have not been met for the last 4-5 years. Think last year they managed to fulfill 40% of the quota needed to provide cheap housing for those already here. The current government has pledged to force councils to sell off a certain % of their homes every year if they are re-elected, and the councils themselves are up in arms over it as they cannot keep pace with construction needs now, let alone be forced to cut back on existing housing further.

The economy’s still in less than stellar shape, and the funds to pay contractors for new housing, just aren’t available. Austerity has seen corners cut everywhere. Welfare’s also been scaled back dramatically and even the police force has been cut by around 20%.

Whether you consider it a ‘bullshit’ argument or not, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s also a completely true and completely valid one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / child dies after overdosing on parent's "medicinal" weed

Originally posted by Redem:

Don’t worry, he is a long time and obvious troll. Everyone knows it. Engaging with the inanity as a passing amusement keeps people from being bored.

The one problem Mafefe has, is that unlike most trolls, he does actually have a brain, and occasionally shows us glimpses of a keen mind. So when he backs himself into a corner like he has with rampant stupidity here, the only person who ends up looking a complete and total tool, is him.

I’ll engage both for the therapeutic effects Redem mentions (therapeutic because of that knowledge that I’m not dealing with a complete idiot, but someone with a mind capable of understanding subtlety), and in the hope I can actually get him to use that brain, and educate himself. It does occur sometimes, and I see the results of him actually having researched the topic, which is payoff enough.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / GameFAQS is run by morons.

Perhaps be more mindful of what you are saying in the future?

Complaining about it here won’t do anything. If GameFAQ has a customer service email account, I suggest you compose a letter to them. Be nice, courteous, explain your position, and ask for a reevaluation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / child dies after overdosing on parent's "medicinal" weed

We really should bring biblical stoning back. I can think of a few politicians and Mafefe who deserve it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Serious overheating caused by flash player and unity web player

You can actually run a computer quite happily inside a fridge. Take the components out of the box, place them in refrigerable bags, cut holes for the wires and seal them with plumber’s tape + silicon sealer. Connect it up, and place the sections in the icebox. The wires don’t have to be protected, so long as either end is.

It does actually run in there, and doesn’t harm the computer at all. The fridge is after all just an oversized heat exchanger and will help the whole thing run cool.

Of course that’s a last-ditch solution if you really do require your machine seriously overclocked and cannot cool it any more with the equipment you have. I would not recommend it for long-term use. Not least because it fills the whole icebox.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / child dies after overdosing on parent's "medicinal" weed

A deformed lung won’t cause a heart defect, only reduce the organ’s peak performance. They’re two very different things.

The only way a deformed lung could produce a heart defect would be if it was deformed to such a degree that it pierced the walls of the heart. Considering that would be lethal to the subject, the deformity would have led to emergency surgical procedures or death many years prior.