You're missing the point, Mr Coward. Experts have looked at his images and praised them. It's not just him saying they're great images, they are causing a huge buzz in the astronical world.
What qualifies you to comment.
1883 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Jun 2009
Don't count your chickens. It's not exactly a massive sale you know. Up to 10% off* is not going to save you a monkey on two and a half grand's worth of gear. I'm guessing you'll be lucky if you even "save" £250. And you won't even be saving that much since most of their stuff is already available cheaper if you shop around.
* Hey look "up to" and consumers are allowed to work out what it means on their own. Unlike "up to 20Mb/s" where consumer groups think we're all too stupid to know what that means.
I will admit to having a FB account, only however because somebody sent me a link to some photographs that I could only view if I had an account and I was a "friend" of the poster. I deleted the account shortly afterwards, but in the very short time the account was active I received three friend requests, two of which were from people I'd never even heard of.
I don't know what these people were up to. Maybe they were just searching for somebody with the same name as me. Maybe they were scammers. Maybe they sent me a friend request simply because I was on the friends list of one of their friends. But the point is that this really makes a mockery of this study. Plenty of people will accept friend requests from people they don't know. In Facebook's study this would count as a hop (less than one degree of seperation the way they count it) even though it is totally bogus.
I've observed at my sons school that almost all of the "please be my friend" and "I'm not your friend" behaviour is restricted to girls. While talking to the parents reveals that almost all the parents who use Facebook are mothers (ahem).
Indeed I recently heard one mother talking to another about what she and her "best friend" did at the weekend. This is typical behaviour among young girls whereby they are (not so) subtly trying to tell somebody where they come in the social pecking order. It implies that "while you are my friend because I'm talking to you, you are not my best friend".
Like you say these people need to grow up.
The issue of slow speeds over Virgin or any other ISP is quite a complex one, but too many retards assume it to be simple. I'll give you a nice example.
I often hear statements such as "I'm on ISP X and I can't stream youtube or iplayer so it's crap." The first advice I give is always "call the ISP" and the response is usually that the ISP say everything is fine. And the ISP usually denies shaping the likes of youtube and iplayer.
The next advice I give is to run tests on at least two of the popular speed test sites. These usually come back as being slow.
Then I get the user to check the sync speed of their DSL (if they're on DSL) and they will usually tell me it's nice and high.
The next question is usually to ask what speed their wireless connection is. It's amazing at this point how many tell me that the speed is 1 or 2Mbps. And they still blame the ISP - they provided the router after all. However I usually find the problem is not down to specific router problems, but commonly using the default channel when everybody else on the street is using the same channel. Sometimes it's other things. Like my neighbour who's wireless card simply refused to run at anything other than 1Mbps. My card in her machine was fine at a minimum of 48Mbps anywhere in the house. A new card sorted her problem, even though she'd spent weeks bitching about her ISP.
You're lucky. We're stuck with a BT landline. No LLU, no 3G and no cable.
The annoying thing is that there is an illusion of choice in so far as you can purchase your line from somebody else, but it's still a BT line and BT Wholesale broadband into your ISP. The trouble is that most punters don't realise this. They think they are moving away from BT, but what they are getting is effectively a BT service sold by somebody else.
For me the market should be shaken up. Any ISP that advertises LLU services should be forced to provide ISP services at the same price to any property that can be connected to the BT network. Sure it would still go through BT Central, but they should be forced to charge the same price. I've seen plenty of bilboards advertising broadband for ridiculously low prices in areas where LLU is not available. Walk right up to the billboard and you see the small print reading something like "Where available. Prices may be significantly higher in some areas." Given that you can't usually read the small print since you're passing in a bus, train or car it's a pretty cheap trick. This to me this sort of advertising ploy is much worse than the "up to" business.
It's also amazing how many ISP sites you can visit where you are quoted something like £4.99 pcm right up to the last page where suddenly it has risen to something like six times as much even though you put in your phone number on page one.
"Satisfaction with Sky’s customer service was significantly above average, with customers particularly pleased that advisers took their questions or issues seriously,"
What?! A friend was having trouble with her Sky broadband and I tried to give her some help. The customer service we received from Sky amounted to "it's a free service, what do you expect?" every time it was reported. That's taking customer's seriously is it? Needless to say she dumped Sky and Sky couldn't understand why. It appeared to me that the people we spoke to took the attitude that the broadband service wasn't part of the main service and was just tacked on.
Admittedly this was some time ago so things must have changed.
For myself I wouldn't knowingly touch anything that had any connection with the Murdoch family, no matter how good it happened to be.
But so what if it has voice recognition? So do many other things and have had for much longer than Kinnect has existed. If TV makers wanted to use voice recognition they already would since the tech has been out there for a long time.
It's a pretty dumb idea anyway. In most homes people natter away while watching TV. It's annoying enough when you're watching the closing minutes of an important sporting fixture or the denouement of your favourite serial drama and junior walks in and says "I don't want to watch this. I want to switch to CBBC." Imagine how happy you'd be if the TV switched to CBBC.
I think the main issue here is that this is plain yet another system we don't need. Neat idea, but what you want is one person in charge of the TV. In our house when you choose the show you get the remote for the duration of the show. Imagine if the entire family had their own remote.
FFS that's what these people deal in every day. They are, if you like, quantum mechanics (sorry).
The universal speed limit is nothing to do with Newtonian physics anyway. It *is* quantum physics and one of the building blocks thereof. That's not to say I don't think that neutrino's couldn't exceed the speed of light, but if they do the laws of quantum physics would need to be rewritten.
Obviously they are going to question any observations that challenge current theories, but it seems to me that the scientific community is going out of it's way to explain away these inconvenient findings. Surely what they should be trying to do is simply explain the findings and if this causes them to modify Einstein's theories then so be it.
The surprise to me at least is that they are not embracing these findings as something that opens up a whole new field of research. After all this would mean more funding and job security. Plus of course a chance for somebody to make a big name for themself. After all there would surely be lasting fame for the person who proved Einstein wrong.
It seems we have a similar problem here to the one we have with global warming. Too many people are treating Einsteins theories as articles of faith.
Question everything.
"There are so many good factual reports that can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the anthropological effect on our planets CO2 levels are real. This will effect us all in the long run."
You are missing the point by a country mile. What these emails show is that many of the reports are being fudged (to put it politely). If there is evidence that a significant amount of the data available is falsified then any reasonable person would have concerns that all of it me be falsified.
You actually argue against yourself when you say that there are good factual reports. *If* that were true why would data have to be messed about with the prove the point? Why would anybody be asking the scientists to falsify the data if they already had "good" data?
But the worst thing about your post is that you are, in calling for the Register not to report these concerns, advocating censorship. You are treating anthropologial global warming as and article of faith and are, therefore, no different than all those religious zealots who advocate that the teaching of evolution be banned in schools.
It is important that *all* the data is open to scrutiny and these emails are every bit as significant as the actual recorded climate data. Indeed they form part of that data since they suggest that the data reported may not be the same as the data recorded. What you are suggesting is that it's OK to feed the public doctored data that supports anthropologial global warming since you believe it to be true so nobody else should be allowed an opinion. Way to take the world back a few centuries.
Back when I was at school I was taught that the scientific method was thus.
1. Postulate.
2. Collect data through observation or experimentation. As much data as possible.
3. Examine data.
4. Compare data with postulate.
5. Either:
a) Accept postulate. End.
b) Reject postulate. End.
c) Modify postulate. Goto 2. (Most common)
It seems that the scientists are being asked to use another method. 1 to 4 are pretty much the same as above, but 5 has changed.
5. Reject any data that doesn't agree with postulate at all. Modify data sets which are close to postulate so that they agree with postulate. Accept data which agrees with postulate.
6. Accept postulate. End.
To the credit of some of the scientists they are clearly not happy about this. However it is not to their credit that they failed to blow the whistle.
The only thing I can say to defend the scientists is that this now seems to be common practice in science and statistics whenever politicians get involved.
IOW DAB works fine if you spend an absolute fortune on infrastructure. And why would DAB not work well for local services?
The local BBC station for our county is not available on DAB where I live, but ten miles down the road it comes through loud and clear. The conclusion I have to draw from this, therefore, is that DAB transmissions are very localised. As such it would seem to me to be eminently suited to local services.
"a live dalek toy bursts into life when one of his fellows appears on screen."
We already have the technology for that. It's a six year old boy with a remote control, every home should have one. And there's the sonic that comes out whenever the Doctor uses his and so on.
It's sort of like the six year old's version of the Withnail and I drinking game.
WTF has mischief night got to do with trick or treat? It's an old tradition related to bonfire night. Some claim it's actually a tribute to Fawkes, Catesby et al and in some way indicates unity with the plotters. Not sure I buy that, but it's certainly nothing to do with haloween.
Sure there's a lot of mischief of the burning poo on the doorstep and poo on the doorknob variety, but most of it relates to bonfire night itself. Fireworks down outside toilets (a la Keith Moon) were always a favourite. Setting light to ready built bonfires was another, hence most people would build their fires on the day. I seem to recall that most of the mischief revolved around bangers, the exploding shite being a perenial favourite. To do this you would get plenty of dog shit, bury a banger in it almost up to the top, light the banger and scarper. The resulting explosion was supposed to spread excrement everywhere. For this reason it was best carried out in an enclosed space such as a ginnel. Alternetively placing the IED on some poor unsuspecting persons doorstep and ringing the bell was the preferred tactic of some. The effectveness of this was usually somewhat diminished by the short fuse, so the banger would usually go off before the victim opened the door.
Unfortunately the way bangers explode means that it wasn't particularly effective at spreading the poo around. More often than not most of the explosive force was expended out of the top of the firework. Since this end wasn't buried in the faeces the poo would remain largely unaffected. That didn't stop kids trying it year on year though.
I was told years ago that A&E not only had to deal with a lot of kids with burns and other firework related injuries, but a lot of temporary deafness from kids who'd let off bangers in enclosed spaces.
I think it's less popular these days partly because of trick or treat, partly because kids are finding it harder to get hold of fireworks, partly because the good old cheap banger was banned and mostly because fireworks are avaible for much longer than they used to be so the attraction spreads over a much longer period and is diluted.
He certainly did get off lightly, but in all probability he threw himself on the mercy of the court with a sob story about losing his job and the resultant suffering of his family.
This sort of thing drives me mental. If these people really care about their jobs, income and families they would not commit their crimes in the first place.
This is the same logic that makes quite a few search engines a pain. The idea that search results should be weighted based on the number of people who have clicked on a particular result makes no sense. People tend to click on the first result or at least one on the front page. So once something gets to the top it's unlikely to get bumped off. And of course the opposite is true, new pages are going to find it hard to make it to the top of the list.
I want the latest search results not a popularity contest based on weeks old "votes" that people didn't even know they were casting.
Well I know this is in Spain so the NHS weren't involved, but I know people who've been sent home and advised to take over the counter painkillers when it later transpired they had broken bones.
Upon viewing an x-ray a doctor once asked me when I'd broken my wrist. I replied that I didn't know I had. Quoth the doctor "That explains why it's healed so badly then."
I've always wondered about these smart meters using wifi. In some locations wifi is all but unusable, it's pretty damned poor at my house but I've been places where it's a lot worse. So I've long suspected that using the unlicensed wifi frequencies for these boxes was a pretty stupid idea. There are plenty of locations where they will find it difficult to operate them effectively.
Rather than using these frequencies the utilities should licence their own bandwidth to ensure they will operate properly and not interfere with other equipment.