Flatpackhamster

In your view. Which is an administrative nightmare. They seem to manage in other countries. Funded by the Evil Middle Classes, no doubt. You start from the assumption that we, taxpayers should be supporting people. That's your perspective, of course. Don't assume it applies to everyone. Actually I, probably selfishly, assume they've got a right to keep at least some of their earnings. Shame on me, eh? You are excusing feckless behaviour. By your (and so many others) support of the welfare system, the safety net has become a hammock. Yes, in the 18th century when governments were the only ones who had money this was true. Nowadays there are companies who are richer than governments. Take a look at Lyle's, or the railway companies, or Terrys or Cadbury's from the 19th century. They built infrastructure, housing, schools, hospitals.

Well I'm glad that it's "clear" to you that the taxes paid to fund the lifestyle of person A don't come from person B. So it's completely the fault of government that they don't pander to the whims of dole bludgers? No, person A is reliant on benefits because the government makes it far more profitable for them to loaf around on their fat backside. It is not the job of Government to provide jobs and childcare!! Because dole bludgers are living at the expense of the rest of us. That's my money raising their feckless chav scum kids, and I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of people defending the benefits lifestyle. From a Darwinian perspective, they got it exactly right. They're able to produce 3 or 4 children every 20 years, whereas the long-suffering middle classes (like me) can just about to afford to raise 2 every 40 years. They're laughing all the way to the genetic bank. Yeah, that's it. It's all the fault of those evil middle and high earners taking all the consultancy and entrepreneurial jobs away from people who dropped out of school at 15 to have 3 children by 3 different fathers. It doesn't work under Communism either. The difference is that under a Capitalist system you at least stand a chance of making it. Under a communist one, you go where the government tells you.

At present the school whose computers I support has a single Windows 2003 server and around 60 workstations. They run Ranger along with Ranger Outpost. Our contract expired - without them contacting me about renewal - two weeks ago and I only discovered this on Monday when I went to carry out some admin work, found out I couldn't because Account Manager blocked me from altering anything and then, when I emailed Ranger support, got an email back telling me that 'due to changed terms and conditions' they couldn't offer me any help. What I'd like to know is whether or not there are any alternatives to Ranger. The incidence of vandalism here is practically nil and children are supervised at all times, so I'm not particularly worried about the need for workstation security. What I'd like, though, is a Ranger-Outpost-esque tool. At some point in the future it's probable that the school will be able to afford a new server and workstations but at present they can't. I'm just looking ahead at the moment. Does anyone have any suggestions? If possible I'd like to avoid RM. Thanks for your help.

Let them know. Maybe they'll start stocking it.

For those of you who have acquired a taste for continental beers, can I recommend this site? Beers of Europe Ltd - 1700 Belgian, German, British and World Beer. The site isn't pretty, but it does deliver excellent beverages quickly.

I know. I was just returning the 'lager is cat's wee remark' with an 'if you drink stout and bitter that's how you'll end up' one. Banter. It's like words for people.

If by 'becoming a man' you mean 'growing a massive unkempt beard and requiring trousers with a size 60 waist', I agree. There are plenty of fine lagers out there. But if you only drink commercial cat's wee, you might think otherwise.

Those economists all that massive fiscal transfers would be necessary in order to give the southern European countries the money they need. Are Germans really going to agree to work to the age of 70 so Greeks can retire at 55? All of which means that the £10Bn extra of our money Gideon has coughed up is going to disappear.

If the only place you get your news from is the Guardian and the Morning Star, you might believe such a ridiculous claim. However, Labour ran a deficit from 2001 to 2010. Did the 'evuhl banksters' need bailing out in 2001? No. If it would help I can provide you with the exact figures for Labour's overspend for ten years. Balderdash. Brown bailed out the banks because they were in Labour areas. The banks which needed bailing out were Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax Bank of Scotland, and Northern Rock. All three provided large numbers of jobs in Labour constituencies. If Northern Rock had been called Southern Rock and based in Tunbridge Wells Brown would have let it go bust. This class war BS died a death when Thatcher shoved a fat wooden stake through the rancid heart of the Trotskyite unions. It can't be revived.

So if we don't keep giving them money, they won't be able to service the debts they owe us? They can't fix their broken economies while being inside the Eurozone. That's the whole point. Your theory is fine so long as the Eurozone can be preserved. That requires several things to happen. First, southern European countries have to undergo a decade of spending cuts. Second, northern European countries have to agree to send their taxes south. Finally, all Eurozone countries have to hand more power to the EU. Do you think that's likely?

OK, for those in favour of this bailout, a quick question. Which of the two situations do you think is actually going to happen? 1) UK contributes to Eurozone bailout. Eurozone remains intact, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal get their economies back in good order and stop overspending. Eurozone goes from strength to strength, repays IMF loan. 2) UK contributes to Eurozone bailout. Eurozone crashes and dies because the PIGS can't stop spending. IMF loan remains unpaid, UK loses its money. What's "short sighted" about refusing to shovel money in to a project that can't possibly succeed? Isn't it just plain dumb to keep chucking money at it?

£10 Billion more than we already give.

I'd agree with you, in principle, if the Eurozone could be saved. It can't. This is just our money down the pan. We'd be far better off paying down our debt with any surpluses.

That website claims that this product makes it 'look like the phone is floating'. Not unless they've radically redefined the definition of floating it doesn't.

iPaq rest?

It sounds to me much like the situation which arises with a large amount of credit and debit card fraud, where the people who run the system have been bribed. If it were a normal user, I'd expect a hack on the PC, but a geek? Unlikely that the PC has been hacked.

I've bought Shuttle XPcs for a few years. My current one, an SX48P2 Deluxe (about 3 years old) has an ATI Radeon 4800 in. I don't know whether what you've got is a similar size, but if it is then Shuttles are a good bet, although they aren't cheap.

What's this I see? A press release about the launch of the new EU cybercrime centre? http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/Communication%20-%20European%20Cybercrime%20Centre.pdf The Register, although it is mostly right, is wrong on this one. This is an EU programme, and an EU directive. Why else would it be that two political parties who had explicitly committed to dismantling Labour's surveillance state in the GE manifestos should suddenly jump on board the whole scheme? I'm prepared to believe many things of the incompetents who run our country in to the ground, but that two political parties with the same policy would both jack it in at the same time? Come on.

This is the 2011 evaluation of the 2006 Directive - EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission evaluates the Directive on retention of telecommunications data Here is the press release relating to the reforms of the 2006 Directive - EUROPA - Press Releases - Commission proposes a comprehensive reform of data protection rules to increase users' control of their data and to cut costs for businesses You'll note in the detail the standardisation of data retention by police and judicial services. That the Lib Dems don't know that their beloved EU project is the primary motivator for this vile legislation is their fault, not mine. If they were better informed about it perhaps they wouldn't be so in favour.

This is not UK government legislation. It's EU legislation. It's directive 2006/24/EC. It is being passed directly in to law without any Parliamentary debate. Data Retention: Email, Email Monitoring and ISPs « Where is Your Data?

Is it? I don't get a sense of that from traditional Labour voters. If that were the case we'd see the Labour party's coffers positively groaning with money, but here they are, £20 million in debt. A false analogy. Firstly, and most importantly, shareholders buy shares to make a profit. There's no political ideology there, just business. Secondly, of course shareholders can opt out. There's no coercion. Nobody makes them buy shares. Nobody presumes consent as the unions do. Why are you so opposed to having people opt out by default rather than opt in? I'm opposed to an assumed opt-in because I want people to be free to spend their money how they choose. So why don't you think they should be free to do so? You can see from the link you quoted how few people choose to opt out. Is it really likely that every teacher shares the ideology of their union and wishes them to give money to the Labour party?

How is it better? At the moment people can give money to support a party whose policies they agree with. What's wrong with that? It's not dirty, and it's not wrong, to want to support a political party. The problem that we have is not big donors (such as the Unions), it is that the number of small donors - like you and me - has fallen. 30 years ago the Conservative Party had 2 million members. Now it has about 200,000. Labour has about half that. The Lib Dems have about 35,000. As a result, the percentage of money that comes from big donors has outgrown the percentage from small donors. Those parties are failing and dying. All of their memberships have fallen, ever year, for the last 20 or so years. They're failing and dying because they no longer represent the typical person in the UK. That's why voting percentages have fallen for the last 30 years. Unrepresentative government. If you give these parties money based upon the number of votes they receive, then you're doing two things. Firstly, you're rewarding them for failure. You're not forcing them to reconnect with their grass roots, not forcing them to rethink their policies. Secondly, you're taking money from taxpayers who really can't afford it. Our taxes are already colossal. Our debts are immense. Would £100 million a year really be better spent on the political parties than on paying off our debts?

The problem is that many union workers may not want their money to go to the Labour party. The presumption that the union has the right to their money to do with as it wishes is the problem here. That presumption is wrong.

I know. I want to see an opt-in, not an opt-out. I want an assumption that the worker's wages are their own, not the union's.

I have serious misgivings about this point of view. Who are you - or anyone - to decide what's 'extreme'? If the voters want a BNP MP, then why shouldn't the BNP receive funding? Either you assume that the voters are making legitimate, informed choices, and you fund all parties based upon a % of the vote they received, or you assume that voters are ignorant and decide that only parties which are 'approved' should receive funding. In which case, what's the point in having a vote at all? You might as well just scrap elections altogether.