snowflux

In use outside a testing environment? I doubt it very much. How much progress towards this has there been since this thread was started a year ago? Best to reply on the old, dedicated thread to save sidetracking this one any further!

Indeed. The difficulty of imbuing computer control systems with the artificial intelligence required to perform tasks of this kind is always vastly underestimated.

I disagree. There is a world of difference between the driver-assist features you mention and allowing a car to have fully autonomous operation without an alert driver behind the wheel. There is also a world of difference between Google's experimental test driving and use by the general public. I'd be prepared to bet a significant amount of money that autonomous cars capable of the relatively simple task of navigating their own way to a motorway junction will not be on sale to the general public anywhere in the world within the next ten years. We already have a thread on this somewhere. It'll be interesting to see how the predictions pan out.

Not necessarily. Mine's a lifetime tracker, base rate + 1.89%, no booking fee and no exit fee. HSBC are currently offering a similar deal at base rate + 1.99%.

Won't be for a long while yet. The first step will be cars that can nagivate their own way through the straightforward environment of the motorway network to a specified junction, and I reckon it will be at least another 10 years or so before even that relatively simple function begins to be offered in high-specification vehicles. And you'll still need a licenced driver behind the wheel.

That does surprise me. I'm sure HSBC offer pretty much the same deal. I got a mortgage (also a lifetime tracker) with them 3 years ago, and I'm a part-time, self-employed single dad!

Yes, I think I can see how Farage's circumstances compare to Gandhi's.

"Seeing what is around you" is an extremely poor way of gathering data that has a very small sample size and is going to be very prone to confirmation bias. It just doesn't work very well. That's why we invented the scientific method a few centuries ago. Edit: As an aside, I was just chatting with a builder a couple of hours ago at my son's school. He reckoned that business is booming at the moment and there's no shortage of work. That is, of course, just anecdotal.

You might try reading the odd text book from time to time. I find they're frequently more informative (and less superficial) than newspapers and internet forums. Also, I don't love or hate immigrants any more than I love or hate anyone outside my circle of friends and family, a few of whom also happen to be immigrants.

You have heard of the "lump of labour" fallacy, haven't you? While I may take a wage drop, I should be able to find work constructing the second building that the company can now afford as a consequence of lower labour costs. I, and everyone else, can then take advantage of the lower costs of the widgets that the company is now able to produce in greater numbers. My wages will soon be back up and beyond their original level as the economy expands. Edit: And another thing. Back in the real world, I've had to compete in a global economy throughout my working life. Why should certain trades, such as construction, benefit from protectionism which, ultimately, increases my costs?

The Lib Dems gave us the biggest opportunity in a lifetime to shake up the system, in the form of the AV referendum. And we blew it.

Before the EU came into being, you mean, when borders were strictly controlled?

Er, no. Repeating the same phrase highlighted in bold 7 times is what makes your post a rant. That, and not providing any links to support your claims. While figures can be presented in a biased fashion, they are still better than pure supposition. Also, if this immigration causes unemployment meme is true, how come the countries from which the immigrants come have higher unemployment than we do? And why does Germany, also with a high immigrant population, have such low unemployment?

Not at all. Even if they can't implement all their policies, they can implement some of them and will certainly have an influence on government policy even if they can't dictate it.

Not if you've lived under different voting systems and understand that junior coalition partners are not in a position to implement all of their favoured policies.

You missed out "rivers of blood". We are, by the way, discussing immigration from the EU which is, on the whole, not very ethnically different to the UK.

With their attitude to nuclear power? Having once, very briefly, been a member of the Green Party, I got the strong impression that, though their hearts may have been in the right place, there was a lot of being "seen to be green" and relatively little in the way of realistic policies towards achieving their objectives. It'll be Lib Dem for me, partly because of their policies and partly because the current Lib Dem incumbent in the West Midlands, Phil Bennion, is one of the more hardworking MEPs with a 95% voting record. (We don't have any UKIP MEPs; both members originally elected for UKIP, Mike Natrass and Nikki Sinclaire, have since left UKIP and founded their own parties after falling out with Farage.)

No, it doesn't look like a valid criticism: http://www.cream-migration.org/comments.php If you are still convinced that immigration, rather than the corruption of our political and financial rulers, is main reason why the young of Britain are worse off than their parents, then I can only commend our obedient mass media on their capacity to deceive.

Er, the pictures of Farage with a pint are typically posed shots for propaganda purposes, not sneaky journalistic snaps! Endear him to the UK population is exactly what they are intended to do: to make people think he is a typical bloke.

Actively voting for "the wrong lizard" (Hitchhiker's Guide reference) seems, to me, a particularly illogical thing to do.

While the analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies may, like any human endeavour, have its errors and biases, as evidence it is still streets ahead of the anecdotes and scaremongering propogated by anti-immigration activists. Where are their figures and analyses supporting their contention that EU immigrants are a drain on the country?

Now those really are weasel words. I could equally truthfully say that UKIP has "faced criticism for a perceived" racist agenda, couldn't I? I wouldn't stoop so low though. How about discussing the data rather than trying to smear the researchers.

Perhaps I can counter your uninformed little rant with some actual data: Migrants contribute £25bn to UK economy, study finds

That's an extremely disingenuous article with a misleading headline (that leaves out the word "net"). It concentrates on just the poorest EU immigrants; on average, of course, it is well known that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy. On the whole, they are better qualified and more highly motivated.that the average person, as you'd expect from people prepared to go to that much trouble to find work. Of course, there are exceptions, and you can rely on the right-wing press to highlight them!

It would be more effective if you could do it the other way round. UKIP MEPs don't have the power to take the UK out of the EU; they just ensure that we get even less for our money in terms of the influence we have on EU policies. Green councillors don't have the power to do anything about the big environmental problems that require international cooperation; Green MEPs can and do influence EU-wide policy for the common good.