rgmwa

Money spent by the government on overseas aid is not a handout, it's a hand up. It typically goes to health, education and development in poorer countries as well as direct food aid in times of famine. As for people who send some of their money back to their families to help them out, it's their money. They earned it, they work here, pay taxes and also support our economy so they are doing their bit for this country as well. Saying that foreign aid recipients expect a handout as their human right and acquire a distorted sense of their own value and worth because they benefit from the aid is nonsense in my opinion. Trump got rid of USAID, which cost the US a relative pittance in cash but a huge amount in international goodwill. People in recipient countries died as a result. Was that a good outcome? in any case, Australia only ranks 25th out of 32 donor nations measured as a proportion of each country's national income, so you can hardly say that we are an overly generous nation.

I looked at reams of historical draws years ago and noticed apparent variations in the frequency with which certain numbers came up. So I tried writing programs to analyse the data and improve my odds, while knowing that in the long run all numbers had an equal probability of being drawn, assuming there was no bias in the system. In effect, I assumed there was some kind of short to medium term bias. However, even if there was it became clear that the odds were still so high I might as well have stuck to random numbers.

I agree as a parent it would be devastating to have your hopes raised but then dashed, but it's hard to be overly critical if the searchers were doing their best to keep the parents informed in real time. Also, we don't necessarily know exactly what they were told. It could have been anything from, `She's alive' or `We've found her, haven't been able to get to her yet but we think she may be alive'. Big difference, but the media would just focus on them being initially told she was alive and then criticise the mistake.

Funny but it’s AI unfortunately.

I’m sure she does. Her complete devotion to him has been well documented. She needs him and he needs her. It’s a bit sad really and probably won’t end well.

He’s the world’s most powerful loser.

So does your car. Perhaps you should stop driving it.

She was/is exceptionally good at her job of defending the indefensible and attacking the press. You have to admire her talent and confidence. She's only 28.

Karoline Leavitt is leaving the White House at the end of the month to look after her two children but she will continue to advise Trump from the sidelines. I could never decide whether she was very smart or incredibly naive or both but she was certainly articulate, which is more than could be said for her boss.

The Democrats are up against the determined gerrymandering that the Republicans have carried out in various swing states, Trump's never-ending voter intimidation efforts plus their own lack of focus on what they stand for and how they will improve things. They may well snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the mid-term elections if they don't get themselves a bit better organised. Just bashing Trump may not be enough, although he is giving them plenty of ammunition.

That's a worry given that newcomers seem to be keeping well away.

The forum algorithm has just promoted me to Grand Master for some reason. That means the only way forward now is downhill.

I’m basically saying don’t defend yourself by attacking the other person. Stick to defending your opinion and keep personal criticism out of it. That applies to both sides. Just stating the obvious really.

Maybe, but it's much better to defend your argument. Defending yourself usually doesn't end well for anyone.

Only as long as Trump has enough ammunition left to keep it going.

Not necessarily, but it helps if both sides can have a discussion without arguing and escalating differences of opinion or fact into personal criticism or ridicule.

The damage that could be caused by the first incursion would likely make your ultimate scenario unnecessary.

I think that would be the least threatening possibility. It's what it might do when it's turned loose deliberately or accidetally on the interconnected systems and devices that we all use these days that would be the bigger threat. Banks and other financial institutions, public facilities like hospitals, power stations and distribution networks, the military etc., and especially if nobody knows that it's there or what it's doing.

Good idea. They pay for what will ultimately benefit them and you keep your pension money.

If the payout is only payable on your death, your kids are adults now and presumably looking after themselves, and your wife has passed away, then I can't see the point of continuing to spending 25% of your pension on this product anymore. Far better to walk away, accept the loss of a payout you will never benefit from, keep the money and spend it on yourself now while you're alive.

I know a lot of tunes when I hear them but can only ever remember the odd lyric here and there. I’m always amazed how some people can remember every word of dozens or hundreds of songs.

Did you mean to say fÙ\x1d or 102, 217, 29 ?

Much more appropriate to the `atmosphere'.

I never knew they had gazelles in Scotland until now.

How does it decide how the probability maps should be altered to get a better result?