Feeds

* Posts by Sean O'Connor 1

131 posts • joined 6 Aug 2009

Page:

MH370 airliner MYSTERY: The El Reg Pub/Dinner-party Guide

Sean O'Connor 1

I was thinking that too. Unless the plane just happened by fluke to fly along that exact arc we've been shown from the geo-stationary satellite, surely we can figure out a much clearer flight path it took?

Unless it did ditch at sea and stayed floating for those hours until it finally sank?

1
0

Microsoft delivers baker's dozen of patches on Tuesday

Sean O'Connor 1

Thanks!

Got it to work but I had to tell it to Open With the "MS Application Virtualization DDE launcher" that appeared in my Open With options rather than the Virtualization Handler one. No idea what all this means but it's working again anyway.

0
0
Sean O'Connor 1

Office Starter

Since I did the update all my Office files have got orange icons and when I double click them I now get a dialog box telling me "The MS Office product necessary to open this file is not installed on your computer". I can run Excel Starter itself and then open those same files within it though. Just a pain to do it that way now :(

At some point Windows Live Movie Maker has decided it can't run on my laptop anymore. Not sure if it's from this update or a previous one.

0
0

Acorn’s would-be ZX Spectrum killer, the Electron, is 30

Sean O'Connor 1
Thumb Up

Thanks Acorn

Still got my Electron in the garage. I've built my career on what I learned using my Electron when I was a kid so thanks to everyone who ever worked at Acorn!

0
0

Pink Floyd blasts Pandora for 'tricking' artists with petition

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Free market?

I think your Radiohead example isn't at all what I'm talking about. They said "pay whatever you want" whereas I'm saying "this is the price, wanna pay?" As Radiohead's idea didn't seem to catch on I'd argue it was a bad idea.

For years I've waited for Metallica and Pink Floyd to be on Spotify while they threw a strop cos Spotify pays so little. All that time I was thinking, just name your price for playing your music and then let *me* decide if (plus Spotify's cut) I consider that good value or not.

Unknown bands could set a cheap price until they become more well known. Let the market decide!

2
1
Sean O'Connor 1

Free market?

Now that we've got computers and the Internet and stuff, why can't each band set the price they want to charge for playing their own songs and then radio stations, Pandora and Spotify users etc... can choose whether they want to play or not play those songs? I choose how much I want for my iPhone and Android games, why can't a band/label choose an individual 'buy' and 'stream' price for their music?

1
1

Microsoft begins automatic Windows 7 SP1 rollout

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: App Store

> Though I still don't see what the problem is with a web host and a paypal account.

Yes, that's what I do at the moment. It means that:

- there is no central store where people can go look for your apps

- users must have a PayPal account or go through all the pain of entering credit card details, their address, phone number etc...

- there's no way to push out updates

I don't think it's any surprise that the Apple and Android AppStores have been so successful for developers and customers and I just don't get why MS hasn't followed suit. My guess is that they assumed that Windows 8 would be such a massive success that they didn't need to bother with Windows 7.

0
0
Sean O'Connor 1
Unhappy

App Store

Why didn't they add an App Store?! So us independent devs could easily sell stuff for the first time ever on Windows. Are we meant to wait years until Windows 8 is the dominant OS? I'll just stick to iOS for now.

0
1

'Million-strong' zombie army devours Raspberry Pi's crunchy base

Sean O'Connor 1
Thumb Up

Re: Motivation for DDOS attacks.

Is this the most up-voted post ever?

0
0

Cheap iPhone mini 'makes sense' for world domination

Sean O'Connor 1
Unhappy

Won't somebody think of the developers?

Another screen size to deal with? Noooooooooo!!!!!!

4
0

Frack me! UK shale gas bonanza 'bigger than North Sea oil'

Sean O'Connor 1
Thumb Down

Re: Here's a mad, crazy idea.

Because even with all the money they could tax from shale it won't be enough to stop the sun from dipping below the horizon every evening or the wind to sometimes not blow anywhere in the UK (like yesterday).

7
6

Schmidt 'very proud' of Google's tiny tax bill: 'It's called capitalism'

Sean O'Connor 1
WTF?

Re: weird

> For my money the only long term workable plan is to have a mandatory percentage of tax applied in the jurisdiction of the consumer

Brilliant idea!!!! Why don't we call it errrr..... I don't know.... VAT?

0
1

UK climate expert warns of 3-5 degree warmer world by 2100

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

Look, you can take *all* of the temperature data we have so far, or you can cherry pick *any* dates you feel you want to, but you will never see anything like the 0.3 - 0.5 C per decade that this article talks about, or the 0.2 - 0.6 C per decade that we've been told by the IPCC. It just isn't there. If you take *all* of the data you see about 0.1/dec and if you cherry pick with a vengeance you can squeeze out nearly 0.2/dec.

It's all very well saying, "but the rate is going to start increasing any time real soon now if we keep pumping out all this CO2!" but we've been told that for decades and it just hasn't happened. Don't you realise just how stupid you look when you keep promising that and then the rate goes and takes a 16 year nosedive? You can keep on bleating that it's not enough time yet to be significant and the rate is definitely going to start increasing any time real soon now, but as the actual temperature data has dropped below all of the models' lower error margins you're looking beyond stupid.

And saying that the temperature hasn't risen because all that naughty heat is hiding out there somewhere just stinks of pure desperation.

1
0
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> You have pretty much said there that, if they had been, you would still reject it.

Wow, you just don't get how science works do you! I'll try and explain it:

You come up with a theory. Then you look at real world data (not models!) and see if that fits your theory. If the data fits it does *not* prove your theory is correct. It just means that it hasn't disproved it. If the data does not fit then it shows that your theory is flawed.

I have not rejected the CAGW theory, I am arguing that the data is making it look incredibly flaky. Even if the data had supported the theory (as it seemed to do in the 80s and 90s but doesn't appear to since) it wouldn't have proved it - i.e. the science was *never* settled.

I do not need to come up with an alternative theory. Why would you even suggest that?

2
0
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

You just don't get the concept of a bell curve do you? Adding and subtracting the +/- number to the result doesn't give you all the possible actual values in equal probability. There's a chance it could be +0.458C/dec as you say, it's just a very very low chance. Way more likely it's around +0.109C/dec. Just cos some of the bell curve overlaps the value you are crossing your fingers for (it always will. It's a bell curve, duh) doesn't mean I can't say that those models are looking increasingly rubbish. I'll say it for the dozenth time: there is no indication from any *actual* data that it looks like we are headed for a +0.3C/dec rise in temperature. Only models say that, and as the actual data keeps coming in each year they're looking increasingly wrong.

2
1
Sean O'Connor 1
Happy

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> but again you are eyeballing a graph.

Yeah, yeah, I know I'm committing that climate denier crime of "looking at a graph". Shame on me, eh?

They've drawn error margins on that temperature model graph you posted. The actual temperatures (as recorded by satellites and thermometers) are falling *below* all the error margins of the "increasing CO2" models and each year by a bigger margin, so yes that is statistically significant. Even Phil Jones is worried! Face it, you've lost this argument.

2
0
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

Thanks for that graph. Looks to me like *actual* data since 2000 when those models begin (as measured by thermometers and satellites) so far is tracking below even the "constant CO2" model. And it's even slipped below the error margins of *all* the "increasing CO2" models. What's that known as? Epic fail I think is the term.

5
0
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> Are you suggesting that modern statistics be done away with in favour of drawing graphs?

I'm suggesting you can use any statistics you want (or just take a cursory glance at the graph). Either way, it isn't looking like temperatures are going up anywhere near the rate that climate doomsters have predicted from their models.

> ...it is in fact likely that we will start seeing an uptick before too long. I'm curious to know what argument you will fall back on if that happens.

I don't need to fall back on any argument because this CAGW thing is not my theory. If temperatures had continued to increase in line with that theory then that would just mean that CAGW hasn't been disproved yet. As the actual data coming in is not matching the theory the theory is looking increasingly wrong. I know Warmistas hate this methodology but that's just the way *real* science works.

4
0
Sean O'Connor 1
Happy

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> Earlier you claimed there is a statistically significant slowdown.

No, I said that there is no evidence that the rate of change of temperature will be +0.3C per decade (as was the whole gist of the article we are commenting on), it's barely ever got up to +0.2 per decade, and just for short periods, and lately rather than increasing the rate appears to be approximately 0.0C per decade.

> Eyeballing a graph will lead you astray.

Errrr... what is the point of drawing a graph in the first place if you're not supposed to look at it? That's gotta be your best comment so far. Made me laugh!

> > If you thought that temperatures were going to increase (at an ever increasing rate)

> I didn't.

You said earlier: "The models show about 0.2 degrees per decade, on average. Higher rates of warming are only predicted if GHGs keep rising."

So you did.

1
0
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> No I am saying we *can't* reasonably assume P(X < Y) > 0.95

What the hell are you on about??? Nobody is talking about the *probability* of the rate of temperature change now being less than at another date. Do you even understand what you are saying? Stop talking shite and just *look* at the temperature graph:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

If you thought that temperatures were going to increase (at an ever increasing rate) that graph is looking shockingly bad for you.

1
1
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

Could have been? Yes. But likely? No. (I make it (100%-95%)/2 = 1 in 40 chance)

And there's just about as much chance that it was -0.24C/decade.

2
1
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> Whether a period has a statistically significant trend or not isn't based on opinion...

No, you're confusing statistical significance with significant warming.

From your example: 0.04 +- 0.2 (95%)

+/- 0.2 means that the data fits our invented trend line pretty well (i.e. it is statistical significance)

0.04C/decade means that there is virtually no warming (i.e. no significant warming)

This isn't rocket science.

1
1
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> I'd go for cherry picking AGW deniers.

Or maybe they just used their eyes to go take a look at the graph on the UEA's own website:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Can you not see the flat bit on the end? Starting to look a bit embarrassing when we've been promised ever increasing rates of temperature rise.

2
1
Sean O'Connor 1
Happy

Re: Shirley not that meme again

And that's the way Climate Science works!

20 year warming trend = definitely, definitely statistically significant

14 year no warming trend = absolutely no way statistically significant. In fact "statistically insignificant on all counts"

Ha ha, yeah, sigh....

As was posted earlier:

‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Dr Phil Jones - Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

One more year to go then! I got a big bag of popcorn.

3
1
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> That's not entirely surprising given it's only a 14 year period.

Look at the graph from the UEA at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif You've only got 20 years of significant warming (1980-2000). How come 20 years of warming is magically enough to prove CAGW and yet 14 years of *not* warming isn't enough to disprove it? (and don't try and count in the similar 3 decade temperature rise that started in 1910 as there was negligible human produced CO2 then - and yet there was a temperature rise, funny that eh?)

2
0
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

oops! Meant 1.3 per century (0.13 per decade).

1
0
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

Here's the satellite measurements: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ The most you can squeeze out of that is 1.3 per decade (with no sign of an increase in rate).

Thermometer says no. Satellite says no!

2
1
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

All the uncertainty ranges in trend overlap so there's no statistically significant slowdown? Ha ha, yeah good one.

> If the period 2000-2030 comes out at 0.2C/decade...

Not looking very likely from the start then is it? Thermometer says no.

4
3
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

> There's no statistically significant slowdown there.

Ummmm.... there is. And where did the 0.2 per decade vanish to? Or is that yet to happen as well? You can't even manage to cherry pick dates to show 0.2 degrees per decade let alone 0.3.

4
3
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

Well those models are looking a bit rubbish then aren't they! Why is the rate falling not rising? (Don't tell me the time scale is too short because you've only got 2 decades where the graph actually fits the model)

4
2
Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Shirley not that meme again

I said a rate of 3 degrees per century. Is that a concept too complicated for you? When you're driving a car I guess you have absolutely no idea what speed you're going until you have driven for an hour? Please re-read my post but substitute 0.3 degrees per decade in instead. Sigh....

4
3
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Shirley not that meme again

OK, so you take a look at the global temperature graph http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif and feel free to cherry pick any dates you want and show me any time where we've had a rate of 3 degrees rise/century. Please let us sceptics know how many more decades of data we have to collect before we can all agree that these alarmist predictions (from models) just don't match up with real data (from thermometers).

9
3

'Build us a Death Star, President Obama' demand thousands

Sean O'Connor 1
Facepalm

Re: Bonkers

> That's it, the US has finally shown the world they are a nation of hillbilly nutters

Or maybe they've just shown us that they have a sense of humour and you don't?

23
6

Google, Apple, eBay shouldn't pay taxes - people should pay taxes

Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Apple, Luxembourg- don't think so...

Because you pay VAT in the country where you make a purchase. That's just the way it works.

0
0

Brit retailers tell Amazon and Google to pay their taxes

Sean O'Connor 1
Thumb Down

Re: Tax problem fixed

> paying a rate based on your UK turnover

Yeah! Maybe we could call that something catchy, like maybe VAT?

2
2
Sean O'Connor 1
Thumb Down

Re: Multinational profits made in a country should be taxed in that country.

> its really easy. look at how much they sell in the UK, minus what it costs to make

> that revenue, and bosh you have magically worked out how much profit they have

> made. And if the try to make it harder than that, then fine them.

So, if you sell apps on the App Store you'd be expected to figure out how much profit you'd made in each country in the world and pay corporation tax to that country at its individual corporation tax rate?

2
0

Climate NON-change: No increase in droughts since 1950, say boffins

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: So IPCC model *simplistic* rather than simple.

> MINIMUM rise will be 2.5C this century

Really? That's the *minimum* the temperature is going to rise this century? Have you actually looked at the 12 years of data we've already got for this century? Not looking very good that prediction, is it?

7
1
Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: So IPCC model *simplistic* rather than simple.

Not sure where you get that we're on for a temp rise of 4-7 degrees from? If you look at CRU's own graph you can cherry pick any start and end points you want and the most you'll get is 2.5C per century (1980-2000). When are you expecting this massive increase in the rate of temp rise to start?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

5
1

Wozniak to star in crazed iOS action game, rescuing missus 'J-Woz'

Sean O'Connor 1

Hmmmm...

> For no discernible reason the game features...

To get some free press coverage from sites like The Register maybe.....?

2
0

French gov 'plans to hand Google €1bn tax bill' - report

Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Profit != Turnover

> Corporation tax should be paid, at a lower rate, on turnover, instead of profit.

errr.. that's called VAT. It's 20% if you hadn't noticed.

2
1

Can a new TCP scheme give wireless a 16-fold boost?

Sean O'Connor 1

Maybe I'm missing the point on this, but isn't buffering of small packets done already to TCP packets with Nagle's algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle's_algorithm? Is this just simply about upping the limit on what is deemed a "small packet"?

0
0

Tesla drops veil on TOP SECRET solar Superchargers

Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Hmmm...

Is this just a thinly disguised way of farming subsidies from some Californian feed in tariff system?

"will bag more juice than the cars need, so the firm will have extra power to sell back to the grid."

My guess is that that would be 100% of the generated electricity then as surely nobody is going to wait up to an hour to charge their car AND knacker their battery?

0
1

Android app DRM quietly disabled due to bug

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: Oh...

No, Matt Gemmell's absolutely right. You make about 5-10 times as much from the same game on iOS as you do on Android, so us developers are always going to prioritise iOS. It's fine by us if you want to have a hissy fit about DRM etc.. and choose an Android phone because of that but then don't be surprised if the AppStore gets better apps and games than the Android Market.

7
6

Kim Dotcom resists password grab

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: And of course this NEVER happens

Why didn't he just type his password in to show it was his phone?

0
9

Megaupload case near collapse: report

Sean O'Connor 1

Re: @Indies

Yeah, I pretty much ditched writing games for Windows and went for iPhone instead where the copy protection is much better. I don't think it's a coincidence that the device that makes it hardest to pirate apps is also the one that gets the most attention from developers and ends up getting the best apps written for it, which helps make it the best device to buy.

8
21
Sean O'Connor 1
Thumb Down

Re: The New Justice[tm]

To your list of "Music execs and movie bosses" could you add: small, independent developers just trying to make a living to feed their families by writing games, who'd really appreciate it if some german bloke didn't get rich off making it easy for people to copy for free what we've spent years working on. Ta.

10
41

Vodafone agrees to Cable and Wireless buy

Sean O'Connor 1
Facepalm

Fools! With that much money they could have bought a photo re-colouring company instead!

9
0

RIP wind power: Minister blows away plans for more turbines

Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: Workable form of mass electricity storage

> It’s not inventing that’s hard, it’s getting people to buy the result.

Getting people to buy it is really easy. Just make a car that's not completely rubbish. And not ridiculously expensive.

15
0

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

Sean O'Connor 1
Stop

So lord_farquaad, remind us how many people have died because of Fukushima? More or less than, say, due to bee stings?

1
1

GM puts the brake on Volt e-car output

Sean O'Connor 1
FAIL

Re: How will US poor demand affect a European launch?

I just checked and there are 3,600 unsold facts sitting outside GM's factory.

0
0

Page: