Paying for what?
Their wee bit of software, generating trafic over someone else's network? Why's that a good deal?
More like a "Nice Little Earner"
257 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Mar 2014
We should applaud our WHO prod-nose anti-cancer guardians. They carry out this important work, their salaries funded only by our hard earned cash, ignoring the danger that someone might give any one of them the punch on the nose that they so richly deserve.
(boot-note: It's a little known weird old trick - you can greatly reduce your chances of getting cancer by dying younger, cancer being much more common in the elderly)
Yes, hydrogen would be much better, and gives slightly better lift too - which will be worth a lot at the extremes of achievable altitude.
Funny how hydrogen is *Bad* in balloons (because "Zeppelin") but *good* in cars (because "Green").
(although hydrogen is actually used by the competition balloon folks)
"That comment may be obvious to EU antitrust nerds, but try explaining why this investigation is taking place to people who use Google's myriad of services and find them very useful. They often fail to see why the allegations against Google should stick at all."
I don't think that *I* often fail to see this, nor I suspect does anyone who understands why we have anti-trust laws. You guess you must be talking about other folks Kelly.
Personally, I find Google a bit creepy - especially that new pop up screen on Chrome when you try to do a web search. They can Fcuk Right Off about that one, I've changed the default search engine :-)
"Lewis still appears as 'Editor' on the contact page."
I was reporting info from Tim's blog last week, and suported by a comment from (someone using the same name as) another Reg colomist that "Lewis & Bob were the only staff casualties". Was then noted that they hadn't updated the editorial page yet.
'Spose time will tell...
A strange descision by El Reg - but I gather that there's been a change at the top. I think that Lewis Page has got the push too.
A pity, both, and I'll value The Register less without their articles and so will "consume" less of it.
Without Tim though, there won't be anyone to explain to them how this consumer preference stuff works...
No self cancelling means you always have to cancel them. So you never forget. And you never get caught out by self-cancelling indicators that didn't cancel. 2CVs, Dyannes and CXs & early BXs for example - presumably before good French engineering was overruled by EU diktat.
That said, I had an SR500 once where the indicators timed out after a minute or so. That was neat.
" first postulated by Perlan founder and NASA test pilot Einar Enevoldson back in the 1990s"
Wave exploration goes back a lot further than that - I think wave lift was discovered in the '30s and the Siera Wave Project in the early '50s got to 30,000+ ft IIRC.
Wave lift is actually quite common - even in the flat lands of Cambridgeshire when it's blowing hard from the general direction of the Welsh mountains.
@ Pascal Monett
Don't be too hard on him.
If politicians, regulators, government agencies can all lie, cheat and falsify, with no punishment or bad consiquences, perhaps car manufacturers can be excused for thinking it's OK to do the same?
...when Government decides that it should control everything, for your own good. And the more labyrinthine the regulations, the more inventive the victims become in working round them. Because, who wants a car that goes like the EPA thinks it ought to go?
The US still has the death penalty in quite a few states I understand. Sadly, this only ever seems to get used on criminals, never on bureaucrats or politicians.
I read all your article Andrew. I don't agree. Lots of verbage, seems to me it was fair use, and quite right.
If you are "little people" and don't want your stuff coppied then don't post it on 't interwebs, youtube, twatter, etc. If you are mega-corp-scum then tough titty if someone posts a video with distortted background barely audible music by someone-formerly-known-as-something who later dis-associated himself from your company.
I just looked at Chilling Effects and it looked like that private complainants were flagged [Private].
Not that I approve of Google (the new M$ ?) but we have to keep a sense of proportion IMO.
Sorry to pick on your comment - but FFS, Tony W (above) has posted the sums and anyone who thinks that this even asymptoticly approaches a sensible engineering proposal is either barking or just hard of thinking. Probably did PPS or Environmental Studies...
That said, I'm sure that a suitable level of Feed-In Tarrif can, and probably will, be set. It would need to be about 10^5 times the value of electricity produced to encourage development of this new (and recycled) green energy.
(doomed, we are)
<quote>
Abstract
Climate change is altering environmental temperature, a factor that influences ectothermic organisms by controlling rates of physiological processes.
</quote>
Still, I guess they had to say that:
Want to study bugs? No much money.
Want to study the effect of Climate Change (TM) on bugs? How much would you like??
Reading the abstract, they did do *some* measurements (in Western Greenland) but the rest of the "results" are from a "parametrized" "demographic model" wot they developed ...
An old RF mate of mine had a nice incite into modeling (RF bods do modeling and simulation all the time), he said "the trouble with simulation is, like m*****bation, if you do it too much you start to believe it's the real thing".
@ Sykobee
piomas-trnd2.png - why would you want to fit an *exponential* trend to only 35 years of data (unless you were just trying to make a scary point)?
And we know that ice comes and goes, unbidden, all by itself:
"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot" - Monthly Weather Review, November 1922
You can see data at the "Cryosphere Today" site http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Doesn't look very scary to my simple engineer's eye.
Thanks for the links.
I do note however that they are both green activist outfits.
The second link (written 2009) states "The island they call home will be completely underwater by 2015". This doesn't seem to have happened (as is the case with many other Global Warming doomsayings).
A bit of web searching suggests that the actual situation is a bit different from what you suggest...
"Try telling that to some pacific islanders who are already feeling the effects of sea level rise"
[citation needed]
I saw the one where greenpeace or similar had cut down that palm tree because it showed that the sea wasn't rising, and I know about how coral islands are dynamic structures that track sea level - but I'd be interested in any verifiable evidence of scaryness.
AKA doing expensive things with unpleasant unintended consequences, in the absence of evidence of benefit, because we like people to think that "something is being done" about the latest scare (and our scaremongering mates will make a nice little earner from doing those expensive things).
Also see: "some crimes, terrorism and paedophilia for example, are so serious that mere innocence, or simple want of evidence, should be no defence".
@ Graham Marsden "getting away with *massive* tax avoidance"
Avoiding tax is legal, simply doing what is allowed by law. And IMO to be encouraged as I hate to see money going to government, which will largely spaff it on stupid, useless and unwanted things.
If you think that it is wrong or bad to avoid tax, please feel free to buy the most expensive fuel, maybe a few packs of cigs (even if you don't smoke), and don't pay into any ISAs or pension funds. These simple steps will help to maximise the taxes you pay. You'll feel good, and maybe I'll have to pay less.
You know it makes (non)sense.
My thinking too.
And all these were Windows machines. I'd be much more interested in a review of the sub £200 machines (esp what's the trade off vs more expensive kit?), and the speed diference running Ubuntu or Mint vs Windows.
(particularly as I'm currently looking about for a friend with an aging Apple laptop but not much money to pay the £££ they want for a new one)
The problem is that none of them will suffer any significant consiquences. Only little people get a thrashing. The "reptilians" * get away with a gentle admonishment and full pension, "lessons" are "learned" (the better to hide future wrongdoing) and it all carries on as before.
* no, I'm not David Ike - but it is a good shorthand IMO :-)
...but so are you in writing a prat-ish article like this. And so is whoever did the sub-headline (count the fingers in the pic).
And let's not forget that, knob or no, he's exposed some rather unsavory doings by Uncle Sam and others, for which they will be rather upset and not adverse to all kind of dirty tricks...
Actually, we don't seem to be. Most of these scares seem to come from a confusion between reserves and resources.
Have a look at some of Tim Worstall's stuff on this site for examples.
I also saw an interesting fag packet calculation (Philip Foster) which started from the observation that the earth's early atmosphere was very dense and mostly CO2 and that the O2 bit had largely gone to oxidize the iron in the crust. Which leaves a very large amount of carbon in there somewhere - not including C in carbonates (although this doesn't mean that it's easily accessible).
Tee hee, has one upset Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms./Whatever Cowardly Anonymouth creature???
Jolly good, carry on...
BTW: I once attended a lecture on design and marketing given by the MD of a Cambridge audio company. She identified three types of features in a new product...
1) Wow feature - great idea, why didn't anyone think of that before, realy great, etc.
2) Yehbut feature - ahhh - yeh - but where's the steering wheel? (or start menu, whatever)
3) Engineer thinks "what can we put in this empty bit of panel? - I know..."
The way to a good product was maximizing 1), ensuring you kept 2) and avoiding 3) like the plague.
Not sure if M$ think this way ;-)
How about putting the brake on the left and the gear change in the roof ??
And PCs - maybe change the layout of the keys on computer keyboards too - swap the top and middle row ???
Slightly different I know, but people could just get on with learning the new layout. And once they had learned it we could change it again to something else for a bit of a larf...
"The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows — (a) bla bla bla"
When I read smug boll**ks like this, I wish that I had a revolver to reach for.
Why oh why oh why should we fund this bloated, PC, biased, agenda ridden, FOI avoiding propoganda machine?
Let people who want it pay for it and get rid of the telly tax for everyone else.
I know nothing of NHS IT systems, but what you write seems likely true.
As an involantary patron and sometimes user of this Soviet style monolith that seems to be the HNS, I don't actually want it to be spending money on "extracting" my data, whether to a "secure" data warehouse or anywhere else. If a doctor wants to engage the services of a surgeon/consultant/whatever on my behalf and send them information, let them make their own arrangement as they see fit, providing it's secure (same as if I send a report/PO/whatever to a supplier or client).
What I *would* like to see however is for the people responsible for this current mess (and assorted other messes) to be, in the words of a now sadly deseased school teacher "shot at dawn for a fortnight".
Or even just once, to encourage the others (and because they deserve it).