9 posts • joined 5 Jul 2008
Blind pontificating aside, are there any facts here...? No. OK...
Are they actually doing anything in luxemburg (ie employing developers) or is this a "brass plaque" company?
Surely this is like US companies being "based in" Delaware, even if all the employees are actually in Santa Clara (high tax, fwiw)
" It's proof that low taxes and minimal red tape matter the most, when location decisions are made."
Low taxes may be, but "double dutch sanfdwich" and the like make that moot, as fewer companies pay any tax anyway.
But do you have any evidence at all on "minimal red tape" ?
Probably not because as Anonymous says above it is completely untrue - according to the OECD the UK is significantly better (#10 in world as opposed to #23)
Still, why let a few facts get in the way of an amusing story?
I had been asking about world roaming on to cdma networks.
Interesing to see it discussed - thanks.
That is a shame, as it would be a good thing: coverage in USA would be dramatically improved if visitors could use VZW
However, given the relationship between Vodafone & Verizon it would not be hard to integrate IT to enable SIM to act as SE - after all, Verizon has done it in reverse for some time so the linkage already exist. So maybe it will come...
Two other points:
If Apple were to launch LTE next year that would still be well in advance of LTE availability in many countries so I wouldn't overstate its importance.
Indeed, I could buy an iPhone 4S on 2 year contract and be on my next phone after that before I would think about getting an LTE phone in UK... If were in USA then it might be different - but I'd still wait a year or so till the network is widespread, and the 2nd generation UE chipsets rolled out.
Similarly on NFC. I have had NFC in my credit card, for what, two years now...? Have I used it once? Like heck... I am really not going to base a choice on what phone to use because it has a technology I haven't used and no-one supports. Maybe in two years time...
Not defending Apple, but these seem peculiar reasons to criticisize
A few corrections & comments
Alert as several people have missed important facts
First, it isn't £15 a month extra monthly bill. It never was.
It is free, thrown in as a bundle with a lot of new contracts. Or you can pay £160 up-front, or you can pay £120 spread over a 12 or 24 month contract eg £5/month. (I know... its usually "discount for cash" not a premium but there you go).
Or if you are a high-value customer you get one for free just for asking. Go on... see how much they love you.
The box can't travel or be used for cheap roaming. They have to track the location, not least because you could take it on holiday to a place Voda doesn't have license & isn't allowed to transmit (eg USA on different frequency).
There are some weird regulatory issues which why data traffic can't just go direct from your router to the Internet but must go via their core: lawful intercept, RIPA or the way the cellular carriers try to block teens from accessing porn. Legally they are the 3G service provider to your smartphone so they have to be able to monitor the traffic. Dumb maybe ("what about WiFi then...?"), but blame lawyers/politicians rather than Voda.
Finally, people who complain about the cost or having to pay for it.... So don't buy one. Very easy.
I object to paying £££ to Sky so I get the privilege to watch programs with ads in that other people paid for. So I don't pay for Sky.
At least Voda offer the choice: would you prefer they charged every subscriber extra tax to build a network to deliver service to the people who can't get coverage...??
BWAAAHHAhahha.... And do you want to buy a bridge?
The wireless equivalent of Steorn
Alien: cos they can break Shannon's law, just as they don't need to obey conservation of energy
re "Follow the money"
Absolutely. And, of course, Greenpeace is notoriorously far richer than Exxon.
You progress in science by publishing somethjing new.
How many papers do you think were published this year on "Yeah, Einstein was right" rather than "Here's how to extend Einstein and fix what he missed". Well, few of the latter, cos no-ones done it yet: but that is what everyone is *trying* to do, as that is where the money is.
I read it.
For a start: "That leaves about 0.5°C as the anthropogenic effect. [from C02]"
-- so he is hardly arguing against AGW, is he?
He is hoping that it won't be too bad: After all, "As Vladimir Putin has said, "an increase of two or three degrees wouldn't be so bad for a northern country like Russia."
So that's all right then.
Polar ice? Lowered albedo & positive feedback? Disruption of Gulf stream? All in areas he sees warming as likely, but all with potentially worrying broader consequences.
Even if you believe his argument, it is hardly reassuriung.
But I don't.
1) How convenient we are at that saturation point. "Out of all the concentrations in the world, you happen to walk into mine"
Uhh... sorrry... got carried away there. But you get the point. Why *this* concentration? Why not 500pm? Or 800pm? Or 5000ppm
2) He alleges that we are between C & D. But there are no numbers, no maths - and no linkls.
By his own graphs, at low concentrations (between A & B) the effect is steep. We are far from saturation:(watrer vapour of 0.03 and CO2 of 0.0004) so I think (on the same evidence as he has) we are between A & B where it is steep.
Prove me wrong: give me a fact or two.
3) There is no saturation: there is a decrease in gradient. If this were only effect then all his point would prove is that the global warming would slow down - but will still be happening. But it isn't the only effect: so now we are hoping that (unkown/risky) negative feedback may be is stronger than (unknown/risky) positive. Uhh.. great.
4) But the atmosphere varies. At high altitudes it is dry, so it is nothing like saturated.
5) In a word "Venus". If there were saturation at low concentrations of CO2, the temperature there would not be what it is.
@Dodgy Geezer (PS)
Here's a more detailed discussion
Apparently, the saturation point is about 10,000 times what we now have.
So it won't help any time soon (we'd suffocate long before then)
And as for my Venus point:
> The temperature of Venus (~ 100% CO2 atmosphere, at 10 bar)
> …..surface = 467C, (boiling sufur)
> …..but the expected value without a greenhouse effect = -42 C
> That ’strongly suggests’ the Earth’s CO2 level isn’t at a saturation value.
The comments do meander a lot, but the article and the links do a pretty good job of showing why Mr Watkins has over-simplified, and what he has missed in not calculating the actual numbers.
@ Dr Stephen Jones
I'm sorry, I am really not sure I follow you here...
El Rupester>"Lets start with the simple facts: CO2 absorbs infra-red. More CO2 => more heat aborbed and the temperature goes up. CO2 levels have gone up 50% and are accelerating, so heat will go up more."
Dr Stephen> The facts pertain to a hypothesis, which is an interesting one. But there is no indication that that recent rapid rises in CO2 have *caused* the predicted effects: the CO2 and temperatures are out of phase. Your challenge is to demonstrate proof that human agency has significant effects on climate that cannot be explained by variance in natural phenomena. (The key here is significant). Correlation does not equal causation, however, and unless your hypothesis can find this evidence to support it, then it's as useful or worthless as any other hypothesis.
You missed the point. You (and a lot of people on this thread) seem to assume that the only basis for AGW is some observed rise in temperature, which is then retrofitted onto a rationale. If that were the case, then your "Correlation does not equal causation" would obviously be a valid point.
But it isn't.
The physics is that CO2 absorbs IR re-radiated from the earth
If you have any observations to disprove that, I'd be intrigued...
So (all other things being equal), more CO2 = more heat absorbed. That's not "hypothesis" it is simple logic.
Indeed, it is accepted: that is why Venus is hotter than it "ought" to be, and if it were not for greenhouse gases (water, CO2, methane) thanb earth would be far colder.
Again, if you have any observations to disprove that, I'd be intrigued...
Then comes the hypothesis, which dates back to Arrhenius in 1896 who put numbers to the "rise" and estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 - 5 °C and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 - 6 degrees Celsius
This is not searching for a carrelation. Nor is it epidemiology where we see a pattern and try to derive a hidden, underlying cause. What we are doing is getting (noisy, inaccurate) data to test a prediction based on simple, verified physics.
Now, the latest data does not exactly align to Arhhenius' predictions. The key words "all other things being equal" - because they aren't. we have other factors: solar cycles, El Nino, positive feedback from albedo, negative feedback, etc etc
But the huge fallacy is in assuming this is seaching for cause from a correlation: it is starting with physics predicting a correlation. If we do not see one, then we still know the physics is there, but there are other factors going on too which swamp it.
But no-one I have seen as told me what those things are which mean the earth is actually cooling at precidsely (fortuitously) the rate to balance the heating
So, if I worry about AGW I have:
Basic physics + predictive theory + measured data on imputs + observed (if noisy data) on outputs confirm causaility" => all of which confirm why I ought to be worried
I would describe that as "a rational response to a quantifiable risk"
If you want to tell me I'm wrong, I'd be delighted. But to do, I'd like to see an explanation that explains why the greenhouse effect that observably worked from 0 to 260ppm of CO2 suddently stopped working as we rise to 450ppm or beyond.
"Correlation does not imply causality" is a good slogan.
But "Agreed physics + Predictive model + hard data confirms causality" is a better one
@AC (@El Rupester)
At risk of firing an inecessary digression or flame...
It's dangerous for any court to attempt to evaluate science, whether it agrees or disagrees, even if limited to whether some science should or should not be taught in schools, with or without caveats. IMHO, the judge should have dismissed the case with a statement along the lines of, "Whether the school curriculum includes certain audio-visual material or certain teaching points is a matter for the education board and not a matter for the courts (so long as the material itself does not contravene statutes, e.g. pornography, obscenity)."
I respectfully disagree.
The reason we have courts is to try to decide complicated things to some level of "truth" between two arguing parties. That is their job: they aren't perfect but I'm not sure I'd say that they should not do it.
Perhaps a good example is "Scopes Monkey trial" or -more recently- Dover & Kansas. The Education board decided to teach Creationism instead of evolution, and it went to court to rule on what should be taught.
The logical conclusion of your point is that you think that too is wrong, and if the Education board wants to teach religion instead of science, that's OK?
I suppose it is not actually off-topic: there is an odd and somewhat scary overlap of people who are do not agree that AGW is a concern, and who support Intelligent Design. I am not making ad hominem on anyone here, but people like George Gilder, Regnery Press explicitly link the two as "liberal attacks on common sense".
This is depressing isn't it?
The level of blatant ignorance, people who can't / won't think for themselves, or even try to understand basic science.... ughhh.
"My gran smoked till she was 80 therefore cigarrettes don't cause cancer" is about the level of thought of most comments.
Lets start with the simple facts: CO2 absorbs infra-red. More CO2 => more heat aborbed and the temperature goes up. CO2 levels have gone up 50% and are accelerating, so heat will go up more.
Sure: the specifics are complicated, there are a lot of feedback effects & details, and weather isn't climate (ice reflects better than water - a positive feedback; water aborbs CO2 differently as temp rises; El Nino/La Nina). But the basic idea has been held by scientists for 120 years and no-one has proved it wrong.
Anonymous Coward (responding to Graham F): the judge ruled that Al was mostly right; the film could be showed with discussion notes; and referred to "errors" in inverted commas because that was the allegation: not because he agreed. The sock-puppet who brought the case lost. Oh, and "error" was if Al disagreed with the IPCC report! In other words, contrary to your implication, he fully agreed that AGW is happening and the IPCC was correct.
To put it in everyday terms: there is a risk, so it makes sense to pay insurance to avoid the risk. I do not have a scientific model to prove my house will burn down this year but I still pay buildings insurance. Presumably, most of you can use the above "logic" to tell me I shouldn't.