@Luther Blissett
The unrecognised problematic? Simulacra? Rejecting Platonism? The ontology of the present becomes an issue of the epistemology of the future?
Are you by any chance talking bollocks?
174 publicly visible posts • joined 2 Mar 2007
...I guess we're all waiting on tenterhooks for his book to be published before we can rip it apart, then?
It's well-known that the RAF were under-trained, that their combat doctrine was inadequate at the start of the battle, that their equipment (particularly the effectiveness of their guns) was below-par, that tens of thousands of rounds were expended for every plane shot down. It's also well-known that both sides inflated their kill figures. So far so uncontroversial.
However, Dr. Cumming is quoted as saying that the RAF's kill/loss ratio was "unimpressive", and that the RAF was "ineffectual". Both of these points are his opinions. I have yet to see any new data that supports his views, and I do not believe they are borne out by the figures currently available. Given the equipment shortcomings, given the difficulty even experienced pilots had in shooting down planes, making any kills at all was a miracle.
As regards the importance of the Navy in preventing an invasion, this is a flight (pardon the pun) of fancy. As has been mentioned elsewhere, air power was the deciding factor, and I am saying this as some-one from a naval background. Germany would not have been able to invade without air superiority, and the Battle of Britain denied them that at the critical time.
The last thing we need is Sky throwing their weight around on the DTT spectrum.
Increased choice doesn't mean better quality (there's a very good Fry & Laurie sketch that sums it up - waiter replaces a diner's silver service cutlery with a carrier bag full of plastic coffee stirrers, saying "They may all be crap, but at least you've got the choice, and that's what's important, isn't it?"). Increased choice simply means more opportunities to re-air the same dross more times a day, and liberally besmear it with logos and trailers for other dross in case we've got attention deficit disorder or have somehow forgotten the channel we're watching.
Ban any subscription content on terrestrial digital. If anyone feels the urge to pay Murdoch for additional channels, get a Sky dish.
"Go read their website (especially if you have a customer account) and tell me what other company in any business is so honest and frank about things, especially technical stuff...graphs of call waiting times, internal management reports openly posted (including ones with red flags on), a lot of technical detail about how their packet shaping works etc. "
The problem is it doesn't make a jot of difference. The "honesty" and detail seem almost calculated to confuse and distract from the fact that they are completely unable to manage the problems they create.
The usual PlusNet approach is firstly to deny there is anything wrong, until users publicly present incontrovertible evidence of a problem. They then go into a phase of introspective navel-gazing, which culminates in a cheery promise that everything is now sorted and that no-one was really that affected. When users who have lost data continue to complain, they go into the third phase, which is to say something along the lines of "Look, we know we made a mistake, but we've changed. See how honest and open we are in telling you about this problem. Judge us on how we perform going forward, not on our past errors." And for some reason the users fall for it, happily following them off the next cliff.
PlusNet are like a recovering alcoholic bus driver who has just got his licence back, saying "It's alright, I'm not going to drink and drive ever again, and I'm not going to crash like the last six times, I've learnt my lesson" while stacking a case of vodka next to his driving seat.
"The iplayer is still not working on my linux computer or my wife's mac; thus it's a pointless investment of the BBCs time and money."
Oh, I'd wondered what the phrase "The BBC will only direct resources into projects that are of use to Martin Owens or his wife." in the BBC Charter meant...
"I don't bother with conversions. That makes it silly."
Wasn't that what those NASA scientists said about the Mars orbiter they lost?
@Chris "It has a 1 in 5,000 chance of hitting me. It has a 1 in 5,000 chance of hitting you. It has a 1 in 5,000 chance of hitting Hilary Clinton. It has a 1 in 5,000 chance of hitting Tony Blair."
Noooo, try again. It has a 1 in 5000 probability of hitting someone, not everyone.
"I see references to the "Peter Principal" on ElReg all the time but I'm not sure most people actually understand what they are talking about. Tards."
Since it's invariably heystoopid trying to crowbar the phrase into every comment he makes, can one surmise that in his case the level of competence is enough to provide him with a keyboard but not necessarily enough to equip him with the skills to use it?
"One of the world's largest road pricing projects is the central London's congestion charge. The scheme has cut congestion and pollution across the capital, as well as turning out to be a public sector IT success story. Capita, which works with Transport for London on the scheme, supplies the technology under a managed services contract."
Sorry, when did it become a success?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/17/londons_charge_zone_blueprint/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/21/tfl_road_pricing_plans/
I presume your claim of 30-50,000 mile life for lambda sensors came by typing "lambda sensor life" into Google and reading off the preview of the first result.
Actually, lambda sensors last a lot longer than that if the car is well maintained and the fuel mixture is correct. And you don't use rubbish supermarket petrol.
My last car was stil going strong on its original lambda sensor when I sold it at 190,000 miles, and the previous one at 220,000 miles.
Cheers
teacake