I'm suspicious that he's arguing against the tax rate by giving a flat figure rather than an alternative rate he believes is true.

> we paid $400m to Ireland and that was based on the statutory rate of 12.5pc

Not to mention the UK is ruled by a hereditory monarchy with an unelected upper house of parliament.

You forgot to mention she has no executive power at all and this is symbolized at the start of every parliamentary session in the the Black Rod ritual. Check it out!

Yes, Britain has a revising upper chamber populated by people who've made some kind of distinguished contribution to British society during their careers. As with all human enterprises, mistakes occur & some members (peers) have questionable qualifications and corruptive practices do sometimes surface as everywhere else. Sometimes political cronies are appointed. This does not mean we throw the bath water out with the baby.

The upper house provides a venue for extended discussion of laws put forward by the lower house but ultimately has no power to overturn decisions made in the lower house. Most members of the House of Lords (often experts in various subjects) have no or minimal vested interests in the issues brought before them and can therefore offer totally independent opinions since they do not have to answer to an electorate.

Being unelected does not necessarily always equate to a zero qualification for a limited role in law making.

Not quite true. All UK legislation must be signed by the Queen (or her proxy) before it becomes all law. Therefore monarch has final veto over any legislation by refusing to sign.

It's rarely invoked and if it were to happen on a serious piece of legislation then Britain would in all likelihood become a republic shortly thereafter.

The British "constitution" is largely based around checks and balances based around mutually assured destruction should any party stray from their expected role. This is one such example.

> Not to mention the UK is ruled by a hereditory monarchy

No, its not. The British monarch, as the saying goes, reigns but does not rule.

Because the consequences can only be determined by a long and drawn out negotiation process.

Like getting a divorce and then work out custody and share of assets after.

Go with the previous version before this release, 40.24

While getting a handle of the basics of the game you really won't miss out on any of the new features in the latest version. They're at a somewhat more advanced level and you'll be spending your time trying to figure out the menus and how to not die of starvation and thirst, and less concerned with what instrument bards should play.

Is there any way to change it?

I imagine if your name was Alexa (or even Alex) or had a close friend with that name you could also get a lot of false positives.

You can easily change it to Amazon if you do not want it to be Alexa. However that is your only other option.

You can change it, but the only other option is to have it respond to "Amazon."

The only other current option is "Amazon".

I don't think specs are ever going to be perfect. Simply because the people typically writing specs (project managers, user experience designers, business analysts etc.) view the requirements through a different lens than a developer.

In my experience the best solution is for them simply to be available to the developers to answer questions that arise in a timely manner.

That might follow the pattern but it breaks a bunch of typical user story rules. It's easy to blame the format, but it sounds like the product owner needs to be educated on the process.

I pay a similar amount sharing with two friends in Clapham/Balham. It helps that we've been in the same place for 4 years so the rent hasn't gone up too much over that period.

Nutters that are becoming increasingly popular.

Indeed. The problem Is that nutters vote nutters in.

A big chunk of the UK consists of nutters. Look at the EDL for example. I've lived places where idiots like that are worshipped.

Thoroughly depressing.

I don't think UKIP have much support here in Scotland - I suspect most people see them as the "Little Englander" party:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-ukip-ha...

Well, if the SNP had had their way you'd be in the Euro instead.

It can. Although my understanding is that if one side purposefully generates high costs then they can get in a lot of trouble for doing so.

It's also worth noting that the UK is lowering the amount of fees you can get back. There's an upper limit on the percentage of fees you can get paid by the other side. This is essentially to introduce a higher cost to litigation through the courts and encourage sides to settle or go through an arbitration process.