Posts by Mark

Pierre Posted Wednesday 4th February 2009 01:36 GMT

"By your words shall ye be known"?

Not really lots of time, just that there's no need to spend a lot of time debunking some of the complete shite spouted on here. cf "machine gun" comments: it doesn't waste a lot of time to shoot 20 bullets from a machine gun compared to a bolt-action single shot rifle.

Mark Posted Tuesday 3rd February 2009 14:35 GMT

I ought to clear up on that, since it can be misread: you agreed with me when it was right from your POV. If you hadn't and just disagreed because you have done in the past, that would be *deliberate* assholery.

In the same way, I would correct someone telling you off for being wrong when you weren't because to fail to do so just because we disagree on something would be being an asshole too.

But it doesn't mean I will agree when I think you're wrong, nor that I don't think where we have had disagreement you haven't been an arse. And in the same vein, I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion of me either.

Pierre Posted Tuesday 3rd February 2009 01:46 GMT

Well, I may think you're an arsehole, but that doesn't mean someone should give you a telling off when you don't deserve it.

If I don't accept defending you when you're right, how can I accept attacking you when you're wrong? I can do either or neither. Doing one and not the other is being an arsehole.

@JonB

>>Maybe because there's a limit to how productivity growth can manage to

>>maintain whilst the basic materials are limited.

> We've had this before, productivity is not necessarily bound to resource use. Just because one car burns more fuel than another doesn't mean it's achieving anything more.

And it has never been shown why there is never a limit. Heck in your car's case, when it runs out of petrol, you no longer have a car. You have some high-tensile steel and plastic. Ergo, using less fuel, your car remains what you bought it for (a car) much longer.

Heck, since this legislation would require less resource use, it should allow more headroom before resources are exhausted, allowing EVEN MORE "growth" (by the definition that seems to be Tim's metier).

Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 14:36 GMT

WHAT???? YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE?!!?!?!?!

How do you know that your descendants will live like cavemen?

Just recently the US became the #1 produced of wind power. 25GW power, enough for 5million homes.

Which is 5kW/home.

Which is odd because in Scotland (hardly a caveman in sight), 7.2MW of wind power is enough for 9000 homes. 800W/home.

So your children could live like Scotsmen and reduce the need for 80% of the power station output if you are American.

You really HAD to go all Rita Hayworth on this, didn't you.

re: Virtualise

Well, there are EULA's against that (which is why it's a contract, running under a virtual machine is not a copyright controlled action).

@Dom

Uh, wintards are bickering too.

YOU'RE here bickering.

Strange that those bickers aren't killing Windows, isn't it.

Linux for you is dead not because of a lack in Linux or the antics of those proposing it, but in yourself. You don't WANT to use it.

That's fine.

Just don't fuck about with excuses that it's not your fault, it's someone else's. You ARE allowed not to use Linux "just because". Don't lie about the reasons though.

re: Too right (PS)

The last bit is correct. Linux was never written to replace or compete with Windows. It was written by Linus who wanted a UNIX that didn't cost a shitload and worked on his 386.

It's an OS. Not a frigging religion or lifestyle choice. But even those who say "Huh, use the program that works" think it is necessarily Windows (none have said "linux", many said "windows" most didn't say, but some you could check on the posting history for always promote windows...).

markuzick

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

We produce a greenhouse gas when burning fossil fuels.

That's the start.

Proven.

Now, you counter.

@Pad

The original data is there.

I *KNOW* that the data is available for free from the US Met Office (their remit requires it). But when someone like Theon says "Raw data" he's not talking about the figures like "Temperature", he's flim flamming you. He's talking about the data that has to be converted to temperature. Well, that's as useful as being given the height of the thermometer level from the bottom of the bulb. You can't tell.

Then again, all those screaming for the data

a) Couldn't understand it

b) Wouldn't work with it anyway

c) still want to do some fiddling with the data ("And NO data from an urban heat island) which is what they complain of others doing

The raw data is out there. You go looking for it. If you can find it, you KNOW that Theon was lying. If I tell you, either you'll be satisfied with someone else telling you the answer or, if you're a denialist, just change what you define as "the data", rather like creationists trying to "prove" evolution doesn't happen:

"Huh, how can birds be so suited for their environment? It MUST be God!"

Darwin explains

"Uh, OK, but how about the EYE? You can't make half an eye, can you? MUST be God!"

Point out the pit viper sensory organs, simple and complex eyes and show that there is a spectrum of "eye" that works quite fine.

"Uh, Mmmm. Ah! The Flagellum! It can't work without all its parts! It MUST BE GOD!"

Point out that two protein chains that are useful in their own right combine and can make a flagellum.

and so on.

Look at how markuzick says "it's up to the prosecution to prove its case". But COMPLETELY avoiding that once the prosecution HAS its case, the *defence* must show how that the case shown by the prosecution is wrong.

But the denialists STILL demand that they don't have to prove shit. Probably because they have no proof.

Hey, markuzick, prove I have not shown the case for AGW. You accuse me of not having done so. So YOUR accusation MUST be proven.

Prove it.

Raw data

http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/nature09data/

PaulM, ask AC

Anonymous Coward Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 23:29 GMT

He says he knows. Well implied it ("employed by a certain quango")

Ergo, if you want to know who I work for, ask him. He seems to know better than me.

PS I don't get paid to post here. Do you?

Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 2nd February 2009 12:47 GMT

"Good grief, you do make assumptions don't you"

cf:

Paul M. Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 18:52 GMT

Mark wriggles and Mark wiggles - but still won't say who his employer is.

or

Professional PR pretending to be an IT guy?

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 11:06 GMT

(hang on YOU'RE an Anonymous Coward...)

or

Mark confesses who's paying him?

By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 13:49 GMT

(and so on. Oh, and you're an AC, too....)

@markuzick

And what do you think lobbyists are? They are how commercial interests get included in the political system. In fact, as can be seen with the recent Labour Lords case, they ensure a common and widespread corruption in the political process.

So anti-AGW screed is, if your reason for denying AGW is merely "politicians are corrupt and involved" is just as corrupt.

You are then left with, as with any jury duty, the evidence.

Who has most of it, who has to backtrack or counter their previous arguments and all that jazz that leads a jury of peers to find for one side or the other?

If you want to be skeptical, act like a juror in a murder case.

a) The murderer would say they didn't do it, even if they did. So they'll never bring up anything proving guilt.

b) The prosecution are there to say he did it, whether he did or not. That's why they're called "the prosecution". So they would never bring up anything that proves innocence.

And, even though BOTH SIDES are biased and corrupt, still we decide to arrest people for acts we never saw, purely on the balance of evidence.

So where is the evidence on both sides? Are the anti side consistent in their counters? No. So when the know what's wrong, why not SHOW it? Without that, they have no evidence.

No need for 4x4

Winter tyres, use a higher gear lower speed (torque limitations are overwhelmed by the lack of traction. using a low gear gives you torque you can't use, a higher gear you HAVE to be gentle with).

Farmers get around all day in knackered old ford cortinas and vauxhalls. No 4x4 (they're too expensive).

Lifetime ban

Just lifetime ban her from driving.

In this day and age, this is a serious inconvenience but liveable (unlike being, oh, I dunno, run over and killed).

Jail time beyond 21 months is punishment and that won't bring the dead back, so long enough in chokey to give her time to think about her stupidity. After that? Well, she's shown she's incapable of operating a car, so remove the license. She can't kill someone again with a car if she doesn't drive.

And, from her POV, she'll be able to text as much as she wants.

But a three year ban is worthless. Life. She doesn't deserve the right to drive.

Sweden's answer

(I think it Sweden) is that when the Prime Minister is sworn in on the same day he has to enumerate the laws for that session. Any forgotten or don't fit in that day are no longer law.

Sounds good to me.

And yes, definitely kill any signing papers. A law must be made like a law.

Adrian Esdaile Posted Saturday 31st January 2009 04:28 GMT

Run 'em under Wine, kid. Run 'em under Wine.

Or use an equivalent. Most times "there's no equivalent" means there's no version that you SPECIFICALLY require that is there.

Then again, you seem to forget that the OTS program you got didn't do entirely what you wanted and so you

a) changed processes so you didn't need to do it

b) changed processes so it fit what the program let you do

c) worked on some bits outside the program when you couldn't do either

and so not having exactly to the dot what you have now means you have nothing worse than what you already did and will have to do when the upgrade comes along and changes things. But because you don't WANT change, you will make any excuse to delay that change needed until it's forced on you. And that force will be "we have to upgrade". Which you'll justify as "well, it should work the same" and then find out when you've bought it all you were wrong. And by then you'll say "it takes too long to change program, and the changes ought to be small". If that turns out to be wrong, you'll trot out the sunk costs fallacy.

And then, after wasting a lot of time and effort (this is EXACTLY what happened with Office 97) you will then have the same thing next time. Never will you change because you want to delay it. And then take it up the arse because you didn't know or plan for changes when they turned up.