On 10/07/2022 10:37, Andy Burns wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>
>> I doubt the BBC understands how pervasive Chrome is, and how difficult it is to
>> stop it nosing into everything, especially if their apps make its use de rigueur.
>
> In the past, devices had a separate component AndroidSystemWebView which was a
> separate minimal functionality browser that could be embedded in apps.
>
> <https://developer.android.com/reference/android/webkit/WebView>
>
> Eventually, around android v4.4, Google got fed-up of maintaining Webview as
> well as Chrome, so Webview became Chromium based just like Chrome is Chromium
> based (whether or not webview has access to the Chrome's cookies etc, I don't
> know, hopefully not).
>
> If the BBC is not prepared to use the user's preferred browser, they could use
> Webview in all cases, the fact that they prefer to use Chrome, and only
> fall-back to Webview if Chrome is disabled probably tells you that they can link
> more data from cookies etc about a user's viewing habits with general
> web-browsing across phones/tablets/desktops :-(

Sadly, that appears to be the case. So much for "we take your privacy
very seriously"!

--

Jeff

On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:

> UK was never ruled from Brussels

Technically correct but in practice it made no difference. There was
legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.

That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.

He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.

Jim

On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>
>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>
> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said (paraphrasing)
> where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones take precedence.

Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.

> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.

Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
paper. No-one I know misses either. An old family friend found that
after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
previously it had been beyond her. I use SI units for everything except
distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
were changed, so would I.

The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.

> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.

Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
was therefore rightly convicted.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>
>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>
>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
>> (paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
>> take precedence.
>
> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
>
>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>> Directive.
>
> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
> paper.  No-one I know misses either.  An old family friend found that
> after decimalisation she became able to work out her 'divvies' whereas
> previously it had been beyond her.  I use SI units for everything except
> distances and road-speed, because all the sign-posts are still in miles,
> so there would be no benefit in learning to use kilometres, but if they
> were changed, so would I.
>
> The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems from
> the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the religion that
> is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the whole goddamned
> bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
>
>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>
> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
> was therefore rightly convicted.
>
Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.

Also it wasn't a democratic choice. It was a condition of accepting the
Maastricht Treaty.

Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
of them would lose their seats if he did. His rebels gave in and
approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.

No one would realistically call that a democratic choice. That was
legislation passed under duress.

After that, EU regulations were rubber stamped in Parliament without
discussion, because that preserved the myth that Parliament was still
important. In fact if none of the regulations had been put to
Parliament, they would still have been operative.

Jim

On 10/07/2022 23:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>>
>>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There was
>>> legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
>>> (paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
>>> take precedence.
>>
>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
>>
>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance
>>> with the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been
>>> repealed) was found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required
>>> by an EU Directive.
>>
>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
>> mathematics, being too complicated to do in one's head, very often
>> required pen and paper.  No-one I know misses either.  An old family
>> friend found that after decimalisation she became able to work out her
>> 'divvies' whereas previously it had been beyond her.  I use SI units
>> for everything except distances and road-speed, because all the
>> sign-posts are still in miles, so there would be no benefit in
>> learning to use kilometres, but if they were changed, so would I.
>>
>> The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
>> from the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the
>> religion that is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the
>> whole goddamned bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
>>
>>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>>
>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
>> was therefore rightly convicted.
>
> Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures Act
> was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound. That was
> his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.

But he didn't comply with *ALL RELEVANT* UK law, and that was the point.

> Also it wasn't a democratic choice.  It was a condition of accepting the
> Maastricht Treaty.

It was a democratic choice to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.

> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant proportion
> of them would lose their seats if he did.  His rebels gave in and
> approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
>
> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
> legislation passed under duress.

Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
'democracy' works. If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
UK? It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>
>Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>paper.

I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.

Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
have a machine to do them for you?

Rod.

On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>>
>> Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>> paper.
>
> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>
> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
> have a machine to do them for you?

Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?

In article <jj262iFq8mtU1@mid.individual.net>,
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full
> >>> compliance with the UK's weights and measures act (which has
> >>> never been repealed) was found guilty of not pricing by the
> >>> kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
> >>
> >> Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the
> >> old non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
> >> mathematics, being too complicated to do in one's head, very
> >> often required pen and paper.
> >
> > I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces
> > and getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and
> > farthings, and having no bother with any of it. We were taught
> > about all this in school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so
> > we used our brains.
> >
> > Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any
> > difficult sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference
> > how complicated the calculations are if you don't have to do them
> > at all because you have a machine to do them for you?

> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?

:-)

I think it likely that had we stuck with pre-decimal currency then
calculators would have had functions to deal with it, granted more
expensive calculators due to a market limited to the UK.

No. I'm not advocating pre-decimal.

Bob.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>>>
>>> Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>> paper.
>>
>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>
>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>> have a machine to do them for you?
>
>Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?

No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.

A much more common type of calculation was simply adding up the total
of what was being spent on items in a shop. The shopkeepers would do
this using the same skills that everyone was routinely taught in
school, often totting up the items on a notepad on the counter in
front of you, so there was nothing to stop you checking their working
as they went, if you wanted to, reading it upside down of course. We
just got used to this way of working because that's the way it was.

Then cheap calculators became available and we all got lazy.

Rod.

On 11/07/2022 00:04, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 23:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 10/07/2022 22:16, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2022 21:23, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/07/2022 11:22, Martin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> UK was never ruled from Brussels
>>>>
>>>> Technically correct but in practice it made no difference.  There
>>>> was legislation passed in John Major's time as PM which said
>>>> (paraphrasing) where UK law and EU regulations differ, the EU ones
>>>> take precedence.
>>>
>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue.
>>>
>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance
>>>> with the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been
>>>> repealed) was found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as
>>>> required by an EU Directive.
>>>
>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their
>>> mathematics, being too complicated to do in one's head, very often
>>> required pen and paper.  No-one I know misses either.  An old family
>>> friend found that after decimalisation she became able to work out
>>> her 'divvies' whereas previously it had been beyond her.  I use SI
>>> units for everything except distances and road-speed, because all the
>>> sign-posts are still in miles, so there would be no benefit in
>>> learning to use kilometres, but if they were changed, so would I.
>>>
>>> The idea that we should all have to return to these archaic systems
>>> from the unscientific dark ages because of subservience to the
>>> religion that is Brexshit is clear proof of the irrationality of the
>>> whole goddamned bag of lies, and that it is indeed, just a religion.
>>>
>>>> He was ruled by Brussels, because of a UK law.
>>>
>>> Exactly, he broke a *UK* law that by *DEMOCRATIC* choice of the *UK
>>> PARLIAMENT* gave precedence to Brussels on this particular issue, and
>>> was therefore rightly convicted.
>>
>> Actually, he complied with UK law, because the Weights and Measures
>> Act was still extant and it required prices to be quoted per pound.
>> That was his defence, which the Supreme Court ruled was inadmissible.
>
> But he didn't comply with *ALL RELEVANT* UK law, and that was the point.
>
>> Also it wasn't a democratic choice.  It was a condition of accepting
>> the Maastricht Treaty.
>
> It was a democratic choice to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.
>
>> Before he signed the Maatricht Treaty John Major had promised the UK
>> people that any loss of sovereignty would be put to them in a
>> referendum. He signed the treaty which surrendered our right to govern
>> ourselves unless we followed the EU expectations, and then when his
>> party tried to keep him to his referendum promise he threatened them
>> that they either endorsed the Treaty in Parliament or he would call an
>> immediate General Election and warned them that a significant
>> proportion of them would lose their seats if he did.  His rebels gave
>> in and approved the legislation including the clause that I referred to.
>>
>> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
>> legislation passed under duress.
>
> Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
> tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
> attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
> 'democracy' works.

True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
trusting politicians. They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want"); and the people
voted to leave the EU, which was followed by *years* of Parliamentary
resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
MPs who want to reverse that decision. That's also the way UK
'democracy' works, and it stinks.

>  If you don't think that was a democratic choice,
> then why are you and others always comparing the EU's governance to that
> of the UK, and complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the
> UK?  It seems to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting
> that the EU's governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
>
You are going off at a tangent. Read what I said above. I made no
comment whatever on the EU's governance.

Jim

On 11/07/2022 09:41, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>>> Directive.
>>>
>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>> paper.
>>
>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>
>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>> have a machine to do them for you?
>
> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>
>
£50 18s 7d

Jim

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>
>>
>£50 18s 7d
>
>Jim

??? 3x17=51

On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>
>>>
>> £50 18s 7d
>>
>> Jim
>
> ??? 3x17=51
>
Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.

The correct answer is £62 16s 7d

Give yourself a pat on the back :-)

Jim

On 11/07/2022 11:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:41:54 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU Directive.
>>>>
>>>> Bloody good thing too - Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>>> paper.
>>>
>>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>>
>>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>>> have a machine to do them for you?
>>
>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>
> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.

I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

On 11/07/2022 13:54, Norman Wells wrote:

>> No, but we used to do calculations of that type in school *without*
>> calculators. We used pencil and paper, and our own brains.
>
> I think that was the point. These things don't exist any more. Well,
> pencils and paper do, obviously, but not the other.

Were you referring to £sd or brains?

--

Jeff

On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> ??? 3x17=51
>>
> Yes. I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.

Are you Capt Mainwaring?
> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
> Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
>
> Jim

--

Jeff

On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>
>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> ??? 3x17=51
>>
> Yes.  I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
>
> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d

That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.

On 11/07/2022 09:41, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>>> Directive.
>>>
>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>> paper.
>>
>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>
>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>> have a machine to do them for you?
>
> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>
>
If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.

Bill

On 11/07/2022 14:13, williamwright wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 09:41, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 08:32, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 22:16:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That is how a man selling bananas by the pound in full compliance with
>>>>> the UK's weights and measures act (which has never been repealed) was
>>>>> found guilty of not pricing by the kilogram as required by an EU
>>>>> Directive.
>>>>
>>>> Bloody good thing too  -  Imperial weights and measures and the old
>>>> non-decimal currency were con-men's charters because their mathematics,
>>>> being too complicated to do in one's head, very often required pen and
>>>> paper.
>>>
>>> I can remember spending pocket money on sweets measured in ounces and
>>> getting change that sometimes included ha'pennies and farthings, and
>>> having no bother with any of it. We were taught about all this in
>>> school. Calculators hadn't been invented yet so we used our brains.
>>>
>>> Now that we've all got calculators, does anyone ever do any difficult
>>> sums in their heads? Why does it make any difference how complicated
>>> the calculations are if you don't have to do them at all because you
>>> have a machine to do them for you?
>>
>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>
>>
> If I were buying 17 I'd want them for £3 10s.
>

and get short shrift if £3 13s 11d is the price after the half-crown
discount for buying a baker's dozen or more

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 11/07/2022 12:01, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2022 00:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2022 23:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> No one would realistically call that a democratic choice.  That was
>>> legislation passed under duress.
>>
>> Like the farce that's going on at the moment with candidates promising
>> tax cuts, that they all know very well the country cannot afford, to
>> attain the leadership of the Conservative Party, that's the way UK
>> 'democracy' works.
>
> True democracy is when the people say what they want rather than
> trusting politicians.

True democracy doesn't exist anywhere in the world, we are talking about
UK democracy as it existed and still exists in the UK.

> They voted not to give Scotland independence, yet
> there is a party in government in Scotland who refuse to accept this
> ("Lets keep trying until we get the answer we want");

But since then with the UK shooting itself in the foot by leaving the
EU, the political landscape has radically changed, and therefore there
is some justification for demanding a new vote.

> and the people
> voted to leave the EU, which was followed by *years* of Parliamentary
> resistance to that result and there is still a sizeable proportion of
> MPs who want to reverse that decision.

Because they see if for the mistake it was.

> That's also the way UK
> 'democracy' works, and it stinks.

Maybe, but if you believe that then you can't keep claiming that the UK
is any more democratic than the EU, which, as quoted below, just one of
any number that I could have chosen, you have frequently claimed in the
past.

>>   If you don't think that was a democratic choice, then why are you
>> and others always comparing the EU's governance to that of the UK, and
>> complaining that the EU is much less democratic than the UK?  It seems
>> to me that implicitly and unwittingly you are admitting that the EU's
>> governance is actually more democratic than the UK's!
>>
> You are going off at a tangent. Read what I said above. I made no
> comment whatever on the EU's governance.

You can't run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Previously in
this very same thread you have criticised the European Parliament as
being undemocratic, as in, for just one of many possible examples ...

On 10/03/2022 16:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
> My point entirely - they are elected lobbyists not an executive body.

.... and now in effect you are stating much the same sort of thing about
the UK Parliament, so you have contradicted yourself.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/07/2022 14:09, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>>
>>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ??? 3x17=51

I think the above subthread has rather proved my original point!

>> Yes.  I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
>> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
>>
>> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
> That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
> common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.

+1

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:
> Because they see if for the mistake it was.

It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance
agreement. Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.

I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
agree to differ on this.

Jim

On 11/07/2022 14:09, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2022 13:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 11/07/2022 12:26, Figaro wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:06:44 +0100, Indy Jess John
>>> <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Have you tried multiplying £3 13s 11d by 17 on a calculator?
>>>>>
>>>> £50 18s 7d
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> ??? 3x17=51
>>>
>> Yes.  I hit the wrong key on the calculator and only spotted it just
>> after I sent it, but I left it in to see if anyone noticed.
>>
>> The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
> That just illustrates the point that we've lost our ability to apply
> common sense checking to whatever a calculator or computer says.
>
I am perfectly capable of doing that sort of arithmetic using my brains,
but the challenge was to use a calculator. It is something I rarely do,
so I had finger trouble.

Jim

On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 13:17:28 +0100, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:

>The correct answer is £62 16s 7d
>
>Give yourself a pat on the back :-)
>
>Jim
>

Ok but it was a bit awkward!

For the given example it can be done mentally or with paper and pencil
£3 x17 = £51
13s x17 =10x17 +3x17 =221s /20 £11 1s
11p x 17=(1s - 1p) x17 =17s -17p = 15s 7p
so adding it all up
£62 16s 7p

On 11/07/2022 02:56 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 11/07/2022 14:33, Java Jive wrote:

>> Because they see if for the mistake it was.

> It was only a mistake because the Remainers wouldn't accept the
> referendum result and sabotaged all attempts to get a decent severance
> agreement.  Boris had to use the Teresa May's BRINO version to get
> anywhere at all in the light of their efforts.

> I know you will stick to your arguments, regardless of whether others
> will consider them right or wrong, so I will leave it there. We will
> agree to differ on this.

> Jim

*You* might agree to that...