Re: Follow the money?
Maybe you should be dialing 112 instead of 211?
645 publicly visible posts • joined 8 May 2008
But was it cellular?
Apparently yes:
"C'est avec Radiocom 2000 qu'apparaissent les premières notions de téléphonie cellulaire avec, peu après son lancement en 1986, l'apparition du hand over (capacité de changer de cellule dynamiquement) et de l'attribution de fréquences au sein d'une cellule. Le réseau couvre la quasi-totalité du territoire."
So I'm wrong.
Of course "En 1988, il compte 60 000 abonnés" so I guess I can see how I missed it.
"BAE's "Gorgon Stare", for example, can track multiple objects within a 4KM radius beneath a drone."
Wikipedia says:
"Gorgon Stare is a video capture technology developed by the United States military. "
and
"Gorgon Stare is being developed and tested on the MQ-9 Reaper at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. with the 53rd Wing. These sensors pods have been in development since 2009 by the Air Force’s Big Safari group and Sierra Nevada Corp.[9]"
Where's BAE in that?
"If natural cycles can completely mask the global warming signal for 20 years, is it not likely that they can *enhance* the global warming signal for a similar "
Well, yes. but the problem is that the warming has been going on for rather longer than 20 years.
Remove the cycles and look at the underlying trend.
"So the ice loss, although not accelerating *is* a fact then? There is a steady, non-accelerating rate of ice loss over Greenland's surface?"
You've mis-read the Lewis's article in the way he hoped you would.
Lewis reports the paper as claiming the annual acceleration is 8 billion tons plus or minus 6.28 gigatonnes.
I.e. the annual accelaration is between 1.72 and 14.28 billion tons per year.
This is lower than other estimates, but not zero.
"I can't imagine the average Scot being very happy when they go to their bank and say "I'd like £500" and the teller replying: "we've sent our manager down to Newcastle to flog a car. He should be back tomorrow with a few thousand in notes. You'll have to wait."
Uh, you do know that scottish banks print their own notes?
"Printing and minting Scottish pound sterlings? Okay - these already exist"
Oh, you do. So what exactly is the point of your wierd story?
There was a story at Hull Uni about a large dewar of liquid nitrogen that was left in a lab - one day someone noticed that the neck had frosted over. Panic ensued, the dewar was carefully dragged out onto a sports field and the TA took shots at it. in an attempt to reduce the pressure.
Turned out to be emptty.
(Story probably bollocks).
"also remember big fun with sticks of magnesium in high school. An experiment called for it, and the teacher brought it in, packed in gel in metal casks, explaining why this was necessary to keep the magnesium from contacting air or water until ready, telling us the story of what happened to a kid who tried to sneak some out in his pants pocket."
Not magnesium.
Sodium, potassium or lithium probably.
<blockquote>To be sure, EU denizens have a vastly different perception on personal firearm ownership. </blockquote>
Well, no.
UK denizens have a vastly different perception.
Firearms are much more common in the rest of the EU.
(I'd contend that the UK and US are both, in different ways, insane on the "gun question". The rest of the world is much less crazy.)
On the little square that I know best, OpenStreetMap shows a pedestrian street (with steps) as a road and, what's worse, it also shows a road that simply doesn't exist - there is a 5 metre high and 1 metre thick wall where the 'road' is supposed to start.
So why don't you fix it?
Uh, torque is force x distance, i.e. newtons x metres.
I guess you meant to write kilograms x centimetres rather than kilograms / centimetres, but that's still wrong, the kilogram is a unit of mass, not force.
Sounds like someone has been doing stupid translation from non SI units, pound feet, forgetting that the pound is a unit of force and not mass.
"In the meantime, Fukushima has shown PWR's to be faulty by design (containment vessel unable to withstand the pressure of hydrogen buildup),"
Uh, the Fukushima reactors were BWR's, not PWR's.
And the hydrogen problem was that the idiot Japanese didn't fit hydrogen recombiners like sane (non Japanese, non American) people do.
As for storing the fuel rods on top of the reactors...
Why? In 1974 France decided to go nuclear, the first plant was comissioned on December 1, 1980. 56 plants were built in all.
Six years to build the first plant.
Britain would take 20 years to do what France could do in six?
Come to think of it you're probably right. Glad I got out of that defeatist shithole.
Bizzare. You claim the IPCC is "publishing reports with scientists names [...] that hadn't agreed to their use"(*) then you recommend that we watch "the Great Global Warming Swindle" that includes contributions from scientsts who complain that they were "completely misrepresented" by the program.
Projection?
((*) by the way, [citation needed]).
"(* is that more tolerable than "deniers"? I don't want to set anybody's twisted knickers on fire)"
Since it's obvious that the pros (Lewis, Andrew) are smart enough to know that what they are writing is shit the correct term is trolls. I'm buggered if I understand most of the commenters, I think they're probablyt just loonies.
Re-read the article.
The different scenarios are based on our behaviour, not the science. As we seem to be in the "burn all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on" scenario we'd expect the warming to be at least as much as the worst case prediction.
And it is.
What is the point? For ideological reasons you don't want to accept AGW, but you recognise that there is no scientific reason to reject the theory. Ok. But why publish crap like this?
"Fossil-furtling boffins have announced that the human race was burning things - and irresponsibly releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - fully a million years ago, some 300,000 years earlier than had been thought."
No, as you recognise yourself burning wood has no effect on atmospheric CO2. You've got to burn fossil fuels for that, and prehistoric oil refining was minimal.
"Many people feel that reading, writing, and other such non-food-gathering, energy-related activities are a big part of what make us human - like socialising round the old camp fire. However all this has led to a lot more CO2 being emitted, which some say means we should go back to windmills and waterwheels: though nobody is openly advocating a return to universal mass illiteracy."
WTF. Do you seriously think that the publishing industry is a major cause of our CO2 output? Are you really so deluded as to think that people who'd like to cut CO2 emissions want us to stop reading?
Ass backwards again.
Apple don't own Apple shares. Apple shareholdsers own Apple shares.
At the current price it would cost 550 billion to buy Apple - the shareholders get that cash.
Then you, having bought Apple, own all their assets - inluding 100 billion in cash.
So you are only out of pocket 450 billion.