Near Miss of the Day 453: Punishment pass on two-abreast cyclists

On 20:01 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 17:41, Pamela wrote:
On 15:52 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

When the government steals business rates it's dishonest to claim the
portion returned is "government funding".

Here we go ... "government steals business rates". Isn't there a forum
somewhere where you can rant about that sort of thing without bothering
normal people?

It's here.

Surely you don't need to parade your distorted political views everywhere.

All political views are distorted, except one's own.

How true.

On 13/08/2020 20:13, Pamela wrote:
On 19:36 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 17:24, Pamela wrote:

By the way, can you tell me what your nym means? Not wishing to pry but I
presume it had its origin in something significant to you.

It's a Texas Instruments DSP. I did some coding on one so I had a manual
which stood out as I glanced at my bookshelf.

The experience must have left an impression. Seesm that device goes back to
the 1980s.

Then it's like the Toyota Corolla and Dr Who; the name remains the same
but the product changes.

Did you ever read Osbourne's "An Introduction to Microcomputers"?

I have never worked on microcomputers.

It came out in several volumes some years before the TMS320. Volume 2
featured the TMS1000 amongst others.

I expect it did.

On 21:23 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 20:13, Pamela wrote:
On 19:36 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 17:24, Pamela wrote:

By the way, can you tell me what your nym means? Not wishing to pry
but I presume it had its origin in something significant to you.

It's a Texas Instruments DSP. I did some coding on one so I had a
manual which stood out as I glanced at my bookshelf.

The experience must have left an impression. Seesm that device goes
back to the 1980s.

Then it's like the Toyota Corolla and Dr Who; the name remains the same
but the product changes.

Did you ever read Osbourne's "An Introduction to Microcomputers"?

I have never worked on microcomputers.

In the early days "microcomputer" was given to all sorts of processing chips.
PCs didn't appear until several years after that book.

Didn't realise you were so old!

It came out in several volumes some years before the TMS320. Volume 2
featured the TMS1000 amongst others.

I expect it did.

On 14/08/2020 13:18, Pamela wrote:
On 21:23 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 20:13, Pamela wrote:
On 19:36 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 17:24, Pamela wrote:

By the way, can you tell me what your nym means? Not wishing
to pry but I presume it had its origin in something
significant to you.

It's a Texas Instruments DSP. I did some coding on one so I had
a manual which stood out as I glanced at my bookshelf.

The experience must have left an impression. Seesm that device
goes back to the 1980s.

Then it's like the Toyota Corolla and Dr Who; the name remains the
same but the product changes.

Did you ever read Osbourne's "An Introduction to
Microcomputers"?

I have never worked on microcomputers.

In the early days "microcomputer" was given to all sorts of
processing chips. PCs didn't appear until several years after that
book.

A microcomputer contains a microprocessor (the PC is an example);
equipment with a microprocessor is not necessarily considered to be a
microcomputer; a microprocessor is not a microcomputer.

Didn't realise you were so old!

If you have to tell me about antique computers I can't be as old as
you think.

It came out in several volumes some years before the TMS320.
Volume 2 featured the TMS1000 amongst others.

I expect it did.

On 17:27 14 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

On 14/08/2020 13:18, Pamela wrote:
On 21:23 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 20:13, Pamela wrote:
On 19:36 13 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/08/2020 17:24, Pamela wrote:

By the way, can you tell me what your nym means? Not wishing
to pry but I presume it had its origin in something significant to
you.

It's a Texas Instruments DSP. I did some coding on one so I had
a manual which stood out as I glanced at my bookshelf.

The experience must have left an impression. Seesm that device
goes back to the 1980s.

Then it's like the Toyota Corolla and Dr Who; the name remains the
same but the product changes.

Did you ever read Osbourne's "An Introduction to Microcomputers"?

I have never worked on microcomputers.

In the early days "microcomputer" was given to all sorts of processing
chips. PCs didn't appear until several years after that book.

A microcomputer contains a microprocessor (the PC is an example);
equipment with a microprocessor is not necessarily considered to be a
microcomputer; a microprocessor is not a microcomputer.

Agreed. However in the early days of microprocesors (before the personal
computer was invented) such terms were not so clear cut....

"A microcomputer [SIC] is sold as one, or a very few logical devices,
destined to become components in a larger logic system"

From page 1-4 in:

https://archive.org/details/AnIntrod...olume1/page/n1
9/mode/2up

Didn't realise you were so old!

If you have to tell me about antique computers I can't be as old as you
think.

If you were programming the actual TMS320 and not its later derivatives
then presumably that was in the 1980s.

On 14/08/2020 19:23, Pamela wrote:

If you were programming the actual TMS320 and not its later derivatives
then presumably that was in the 1980s.

I was coding for a processor that was badged as TMS320xxxxx that is
still listed for new designs.

If someone tells you they have a Toyota Corolla do you automatically
assume it looks like this?
https://tinyurl.com/y2m86532

On 23:40 14 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

On 14/08/2020 19:23, Pamela wrote:

If you were programming the actual TMS320 and not its later derivatives
then presumably that was in the 1980s.

I was coding for a processor that was badged as TMS320xxxxx that is
still listed for new designs.

If someone tells you they have a Toyota Corolla do you automatically
assume it looks like this? https://tinyurl.com/y2m86532

So you were not programming the TMS320 but something else similar.

That wasn't clear when I asked about TMS320 and you said: "It's a Texas
Instruments DSP. I did some coding on one".

I hope your programming wasn't as imprecise.

On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 15:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 11:51, Pamela wrote:
On 22:00Â* 12 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 11/08/2020 11:41, Pamela wrote:
On 11:37Â* 11 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:
On Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 11:35:00 AM UTC+1, Pamela

If everyone rode a bicycle, who would pay for the roads the
bicycles ride on?

Council tax payers, as they do now?

Local council receive most of their funding from central government.

That 23% is of course an average. Some councils get less (some
nothing), some get more.

It is only in the last year that local government's own contribution
Â*has crept past 50%.Â* What I say remains true for the full decade.
Here is a more accurate assessment.

You can watch the pictures if the words are too difficult.

It looks as though that's all you managed to do. It obviously goes
with your inability to pack a bag.

When the government steals business rates it's dishonest to claim the
portion returned is "government funding".

That's rubbish.

"Stealing" was bound to be contentious. Unusually, you actually provided
a sensible and reasoned response. Well done.

But I still think it wrong to call money that goes out, a grant when it
comes back.

When local government had the ability to do whatever it liked in
connection with business rates, some councils, chief among them Mad
Ken's loony GLC, had a declared policy of setting them high as a way
of extracting money from "capitalism" and spending it on (their)
voters. It was a form of legalised corruption and taking that power
away from legally-corrupt councillors was well overdue.

Since one of the central planks of the UK's local government finance
system involves transfer of resources from net paying areas to net
consuming areas, taking control of unified business rate revenue and
distributing it on the basis of needs rather than location of business
was an obvious policy. It's easy to see that the City of London (for
instance) has a high potential yield for business rates that is not
matched by unmet need for services to its (rather small number of)
citizens. The political debate rages over the level at which "needs"
transfers should be made and the formula for its calculation is one of
the differences between the main parties (and the LibDems).

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its business activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of millions of
pounds per annum. The idea of a local authority paying corporation tax
at all, let alone in figures of that magnitude, is... er... risible.

You can't count VAT because that is simply collected by any
VAT-registered entity as part of its journey from consumer's pocket to
the Tresury. You can't count items like fuel tax for similar reasons
(and anyway, as high as that is, it would never amount to any council's
share in the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money handed out to LAs by
the Treasury).

Are you really sure you meant that your council - or any council - is a
net contributor?

The implication of that would be that amending the various Local
Government Acts so as to force all councils to do whatever your council
is doing would obviate the need for any rate support grant at all. And
maybe even a revenue stream for the Chancellor.

And does that sound feasible?

Does the LA do business or does it merely own shares in a company
which does business? There's a big difference between those positions.

Both, I understand.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...unding-england

There, I've fixed the link for you. (It's rather sweet how you and
Nugent cuddle up to each other.)

That just would not copy properly in Chrome.

I use Chrome.

On 16/08/2020 03:40, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its business
activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of millions
of pounds per annum.

"In 2019/20, due to a special
increase to the business rates tariff payments which we must pay, we
will have a negative grant of £7.1million, meaning we will be
subsidising other local authorities."

On 17/08/2020 08:42, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/2020 03:40, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2020 19:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/08/2020 16:46, JNugent wrote:

My LA also has to pay tax on the profit of its business
activities.

What "tax" would that be?

I just threw it in to illustrate that the LA is a net contributor.

*Most* unlikely.

Local authorities count their government grants in tens of millions
of pounds per annum.

"In 2019/20, due to a special
increase to the business rates tariff payments which we must pay, we
will have a negative grant of £7.1million, meaning we will be
subsidising other local authorities."

That's a traduction (AKA a falsehood). Someone is deceitfully playing
with words, probably taking up the position that the central government
receipt of business rate revenue is "theirs".

Please state which British local authority got no central taxpayers'
grant and had to pay money into the Treasury instead.

By the way, there's nothing wrong in principle with certain LAs
subsidising other LAs. The City of London Corporation is the best
example of that.