At Orsha, the nickname “Ramp Tramp” puzzled many Soviet pilots and engineers, even those familiar with English. One rough translation offered was “Unshaven Vagabond,” which still baffled Soviet airmen.
It puzzles me, and English is my first language! What does it mean?
> For countries that are based on a unique language, ethnicity and culture, it is damaging.
Where are these places? Very few countries are based on a unique language, ethnicity, or culture, and those that are have generally only become so as a result of active suppression of minority cultures and languages.
In fact, apart from a few microstates and isolated islands, I can't really think of any monocultural nations.
I follow a similar philosophy. At the moment, I have two near-identical factory-refurbished x220's, each of which I've upgraded with an IPS screen, 16 GB RAM, and an SSD. One stays at home, and I use the other at the client site.
Even with the upgrades, they still cost me little enough that I wouldn't mind too much if one died, and I've always got at least one spare and ready to go.
> You have the choice not to consume any content or to consume free content.
Over the years that I've watched this discussion, I've come to notice that people who advocate for paying for stuff seem (though it might just be my perception) to use expressions like "consume content" more often than those who don't.
It's rather uninspiring, and I suspect it's counter-productive. No one wants to "consume content". They want to watch a film, or listen to a song, or read a book, or just be entertained. I doubt anyone ever invited a date round "to consume beverages and content".
It seems to be more than that. For example, I typed in my mobile phone number, and it correctly identified the operator as "Hutchison 3G UK" (i.e. 3), which it now is - but it's a number that was originally Virgin and which has been ported a couple of times since then.
I have heard that the Muirhead Tower (at the University of Birmingham) was originally designed for paternoster lifts, but due to legislative changes was built with two regular lift shafts - which were totally inadequate for the volume of students trying to get up and down for every class. They had added a third lift by the time I was there (1997-2002) but it still wasn't enough. I hear it's been thoroughly refurbished since, though.
The Dental Hospital in Birmingham also had paternosters around that time, but only staff were allowed to use them.
Bluhell is touted as a lighter weight solution. I haven't taken measurements, but Firefox Mobile certainly feels snappier with Bluhell than with Adblock Plus/Edge.
If you buy a TV and plug it in but do not connect it to an aerial or satellite, you do not need a licence.
You need a TV licence to install or use a television receiver per the Communications Act 2003, Part 4, Section 363[1].
The definition of a "television receiver" in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004[2] is:
"[…] any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose."
And "receiving a television programme service" is
"receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service."
TV Licensing have it more simply[3] as:
"If you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or an online TV service, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. This is the case whether you use a TV, computer, tablet, mobile phone, games console, digital box, DVD/VHS recorder or any other device."
But:
"If you don't watch TV at all, or you only ever watch on demand or catch-up TV, you can tell us you don't need a TV Licence."
As a customer, there aren't many circumstances. The only one that springs to mind is when buying airline tickets with a credit card (but not a debit card).
Where it makes more of a difference, though, is that the fee charged to the merchant is a sufficient disincentive that it's pretty common for small shops and bars to refuse card payments under £10. This is even true of the new(ish) contactless payments that only work up to £20 and which were touted as replacing cash.
It puzzles me, and English is my first language! What does it mean?