Re: It'll be a planet again
If I understand correctly (an increasingly rare event these days), 'the moon' was a product of the earth clearing its orbit. Or a failed attempt of same by a suddenly former possibly planet.
46 posts • joined 2 May 2012
So US gov says we've got a big database but it's ok coz we were looking for foreigners, and we've got it now so we can search what we want. (Unless they lose this case possibly.)
Was the latest UK line not that, well yes obviously we have this big database, but it doesn't really count unless we bother to search it?
"By 2020, 25 per cent of all patients with long-term conditions such as hypertension, diabetes and cancer will be able to monitor their health remotely, said Hunt."
Now I can see how ones health might be monitored remotely by others, but for someone to montor their own health remotely surely needs some kind of astral projection app (or seriously trippy medication).
Seems about as likely as nothing going at all wrong with young
Berkley'sJeremy's latest utterances.
"Thursday's burn changed the probe's speed by about 10 meters per second, and by the time the fourth is finished the probe will be going an extra 57 meters per second in the right direction.
That's not much, considering the probe is travelling at 52,304 kilometers per hour, or 0.4846 per cent of the maximum velocity of a sheep in a vacuum. Even so, its next trip will take four years and the probe will flash past 2014 MU69 on New Year's Day 2019, about the time most of us are getting over our hangovers."
57m/s may not be much, but it may be the difference between reaching the target and being about four and a half days late.
"With today’s verdict it is clear that these transfers were in breach of the fundamental right to data protection," added Albrecht. "It is now up to the Commission and the Irish data protection commissioner to immediately move to prevent any further data transfers to the US in the framework of Safe Harbor.”
Not precisely Jan Philipp, if I understand the judge correctly; the higher court (I think there was another in between somewhere) indicated that "safe harbour" shouldn't be used as reason not to consider potential breaches, so the Irish DPC should now consider such potential abuse (and perhaps prevent further transfers as part of any remedy). Not quite so cut and dried.
Anyone taking bets on how long the Irish DPC will take to make such consideration?
@Ed: Surely that 30% recoup could only be re-applied to itself, not the whole initial 100% charge, so 30% of 30% is 9%, 30% of a further 9% is 2.7%, etc. The total tending to c. 142.857% (i.e. 42 odd % increase in charge time).
I suspect though the harvesting isn't that efficient, so the 30% quoted is the overall increase, so efficiency of 23 odd percent. Still high but perpetual motion (or kittehz) it isn't.
Since your options A-D as listed include their predecessor already, E would be logically equivalent to D, unless you are repeating actions, in which case presumably because:
A - multiple handlers required for nested code;
B - you're riled, hence more expletives;
C - the development partner is doubly responsible, plus deniability defence: "after the initial accident I thought a second go might act as CPR your honour".
"The odd thing is that many motorists seem to have difficulty seeing cyclists who do have lights, even though they can spot hundreds without lights."
Round here (semi-rural) it sems to be de-rigeur to wear (rear) lights, but *blinking* perhaps two at different heights, preferably differently phased for maximum confusion of depth perception: oh, what's that, oh it's a lorry turning the bend half a mile away, of **** is it a cycle at 100 yards, no 10! *swerve*.
It's actually worse when they're bright ones, 'cause then retina non-adaption means the (usually also darkly attired) cyclists disappear completely every so often.
Well I've moved the main site from allowed to forbidden in NoScript and that helps (no stupid menu pop-ups in articles, and actual article post times on the front page rather than '1 day ago'), but still way way too much white everywhere, plus the massive pic at the top of every article.
Tried AdBlocking the social crap buttons to prevent accidental clickage, which removed the twit, FB and G+ icons but left the coloured circles they sit upon; the ex-twit and ex-G+ circles still seem to be active links unfortunately, though not the FB one.
Please roll this back.
To maintain a stable average over fifteen years some of those fifteen years must have been rather colder than the hottest ones. That does not mean that the average over this fifteen years is not hotter than a period of fifteen years starting say 65 or 165 years previously though.
That the CO2 input has increased without a linear increase in temperature out may indicate there are additional factors to consider; there are probably very many, and effort should be (and I believe is being) put into investigating what and how important they might be.
Given however that:
a) temperatures seem likely to increase further (from whatever cause),
then perhaps corresponding effort needs to be put into:
b) quantifying the resultant effects,
and if these are significantly negative,
c) considering whether prevention is (still) possible,
and if that is unlikely/costly/would take too long anyway,
d) how to mitigate the damaging effects.
My problem with "the GCC debate" is that I see far too much bickering from all sides about a) and b), a one-sided response about c) that seems unlikely to stop most of b) anyway, and next to dick-all about d). *sigh*
Oh and if we do d) and a) doesn't happen, so what, we're at least likely to have some nice sea defences to walk on, or whizzy water distribution tech, or have kept some peeps in work in the meantime, or ...
"Mr. Gonzalez has won this ruling for Google to remove the links to him"
Isn't the ruling merely saying that he can take them back to a lower court or agency (Spanish Data Protection Agency in this case) to re-assess?
I think his claim against the paper hosting the story being linked to had already been rejected, as may still happen with his against Google.
"The Reg found that PCs at hospitals, GPs and trusts across Great Britain will miss the early April deadline and therefore be wide open to attack."
If all million plus boxes are fully patched and security fixed currently then come April they will become increasingly open to attack by new exploits. If some significant number aren't currently fully patched anyway, then the increased level of opening could be arguable.
Suddenly going in April from safe to "wide open", no.
From the article linked to by Nicholas Lewis:
"In particular, between since the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) and AR5, there has been a major reduction in the IPCC’s best estimate of how strong the effect – the ‘forcing’ – of atmospheric pollution (aerosols) is."
Does this mean that "Cloud Ships" won't work?
Shame. I liked that idea. Guess we'll have to paint all rooves white instead.
Pirate icon just in case the ships ever get built anyway.
Since these workers are on London Living wage of 8-quid-odd an hour, at 35 hours a week how do you reach a £45K salary pray?
And as the article states, they aren't striking, just not using the new scanners. Whatever the other merits of the case that action doesn't seem inappropriate.
First thing I do with a new browser is unset acceptance of third-party cookies. I've never had that stop me ordering anything on line. (NoScript has when the site calls in things that aren't actually on the calling page for card validation, but that is different; annoying, but different.)
Just perhaps this *is* something that Wind Power, which otherwise has supply/demand issues, might be good for? I think one of the other posts had it that running the desalination plant would only amount to c. 0.3% of electricity load, so minimal affect at smoothing generation peaks. When not taken out of the rivers, water currently comes from groundwater (by definition down), or reservoirs (often up); couldn't peak wind pump water from ground to hill-side, while on windless days the desalination plant re-fed the groundwater? The figures still might not work out right of course.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020