21st of December is in a "few days"
No one else going to mention the Mayans? Maybe they'll release the zombie virus...
62 posts • joined 18 Sep 2009
No one else going to mention the Mayans? Maybe they'll release the zombie virus...
Do you think I'd be seen dead fraternising with that bunch of pinko trots?
Anyone else remember the cheat on the Spectrum? Undock, set course to hugely risky anarchy system with cargo hold full of expensive stuff, initiate hyperspace, wait til the count down comes up, and then press the docking computer?
Queue docking graphic, and you're in the station of that lovely anarchy system without having to actually fly there. Make a packet, then get your homicidal on... ;)
In witchspace you had to kill the Thargoid motherships, then scoop up the tharglets and sell them as alien artefacts for significant profit. If you survived long enough. And if you had a fuel scoop. And if you didn't have a cargo hold full of luxuries, which were worth more.
Once the big ships were dead (sometimes more than one wave of them) you could jump out again (if you had enough fuel!!)
In fact, witchspace became a welcome diversion for me. But only if it didn't happen on that "just one last jump" before you went to bed... ;)
And it was actually pretty good.
Major pros are that there is very little obvious CGI other than the slo-mo bits you see in the trailer.
The 3d isn't over the top, in fact by the end I hardly noticed it.
Anderson's powers aren't ridiculously over the top, or used as deus ex machina in the film.
Loads and loads of scope to do more films following this one, and develop MC1 and the characters further.
In fact, I think that the 7ish that it got in imdb and rotten tomatoes was largely deserved.
Post Batman, comic book film = dark and gritty, or alternatively do an Avengers style movie. After the previous Dredd movie got panned so hard, it was inevitable which way this one was going to go.
Very disappointed to see so many comments slagging this off from people who readily admit they haven't actually seen it. I thought el reg readers were more cynical than to fall for that one
Go, because you should see this. And fingers crossed there will be a sequel
PS: Crush some dry ice by wrapping a piece in a towel and pounding it with a hammer. Weigh out one mole of the crushed dry ice (44 g) on the balance and carefully pour the coarse powder into the latex glove. Explain that the glove now contains one mole of carbon dioxide. Seal the open end of the glove by tying it in a knot or by twisting and tying with a wire. Set the glove containing the dry ice aside and allow the frozen gas to sublime while you discuss other topics. It will take 20-30 minutes before all the solid sublimes.
When all the solid has turned to gas, the glove should have inflated to roughly the size of a basketball. At this point you might calculate the expected volume of the gas by using the ideal gas law. Here is an excellent opportunity to ask the rhetorical question, "To what level of accuracy to we know the volume of the inflated glove?" The answer, of course, is to five digits.
OOOO the pun
MY biscuit tin does. It's got many cookies in.
OM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM
Glad to know of your wonderful knowledge of the herpes virus though... I'd shake your hand, but...
It's been a while since I did chemistry, but I think that a mol of most gases takes up ~24dm^3 at RTP.
That is about the same size as a biscuit tin. So can we use the biscuit tin unit for the reg value for Mols for gases?
Cause the blades are metal, sharpenable, potentially lethal, and very effective. And they cut in any direction. Might even have an old spare one somewhere...
The cylinder doesn't give you the stripes, and cause it relies on having a second blade to pass against, it one directional and takes more effort to spin.
It's the roller that gives you the stripe, and you'll need to work out a turning technique so not too much of the stripe is lost at the tops and bottoms. But of course rollers will take way more energy to move around.
Mulching is ok, saves collecting stuff, and what about a feeder/seeder to add to it for that really lustrous green lawn?
You can always add a flame job to the paint if it's too lame for you...
How adverse would you be to having the controls electric, but the power from a petrol engine? A little moped engine would give you more than enough grunt to run a 6V circuit too?
I played MW2 for the very first time a few weeks ago cause it was on offer on steam.
I've always been massively cynical about the whole thing, but I was completely blown away by the game and the story and the involvement that you get - even in those cut scenes.
Since ploughed through MW and BO, both of which were also very good, and looking forward to the next one.
If you want a few hours of entertainment then give it a go.
I won't bother with the online play to be honest, I don't get the time for that sort of shit
"A bonus would be £5bn to £6bn in UK tax revenue – and energy independence. Eighty per cent of EU member states' gas consumption is imported from Russia via the Ukraine."
Currently less than 5% of UK gas is sourced from Russia. Most of ours is North Sea (yes, there is still a lot there) either from our own extraction or from Norway.
The biggest advantage would be gained from this by holding fire on developing the output, invest instead in storage, and buy and use cheap gas produced by the first flush of shale extraction across Europe.
Once the price begins to rise, then leverage your own supply.
Alternatively, opt for dragging it out of the ground as fast as you can, and pumping it out of the country in LNG or similar, to get all that lovely revenue to... install "green" alternatives. That would be the super responsible thing to do.
I buy a lot from Steam, being able to see the current specials, and metascores on the spot to inform choices about them is brilliant.
But the main benefit from my point of view is the on-the-fly updating - no more installing and then grubbing around for patches - it's all taken care off.
If I am concerned it's a huge game, I'll buy it from play.com, and then verify it through Steam so I don't have to DL 15 gig or something, or if I want the super delux edition. But on the whole, Steam offers both value, and an easy way to buy games on a whim, for downloading later.
Piss off Game - we don't need your shit service and shit selection. You don't offer what we want, so stop trying to sabotage someone who is. Come to think of it, I am going to boycot Game going forward.
No power points on those relics of trains, which is why I always dread having to go out that way....
God help us all if you every get hold of a cattleprod
...with the Orange/T-Mobile merger...
T-mobile was tolerable before that, but since the merger quality has dropped off a cliff.
It's getting vaguely better now, but it's still only by comparison, and let's be honest, it's still shite.
Would be very interested to see the performance of Giff Gaff, Tesco, Virgin etc to see if the network sharing/white labelling makes much of a difference?
I'll be interested to see how many shills turn up to rah rah rah about Orange/T-mobile, and I'm confident people will give them the scorn they deserve...
Yeeeess we get all that, but you're missing a huge opportunity for self-righteous Daily Fail style jingoistic ranting!
MY MATE! MARMITE! Shall be the battlecry!
It's a brave move from the Danes - what are they going to do - throw Lego at us? ;-)
Admittedly this says "most bits past the post" goes to Netflix, but is that indicative of the number of people using this service, and the considerable bandwidth needed to stream video at high enough quality to make it worth watching?
I'd be very interested to see how many people that consumed bandwidth is shared across, to see just how efficient this sort of service is if it were scaled up to accomodate more people.
One can only imagine how many facebook liketards would be online at the same time to generate the fraction of consumption of Netflix...?
It's really interesting that Netflix has overtaken Bittorrent traffic levels - is this de-facto internet regulation based on preference of source by ISPs or anthing like that?
Forgive my ignorance, and please try not to mock as you explain it to me...?
The bot nets aren't in the game - yes there are a few macro-ratters and macro-miners - there was a suggestion from one alliance that another one put a DDOS attack on it's forum.
It's old news, and the idea that people who aren't using those forums are getting caught in the crossfire is crap
Of course there is meta-gaming, but it's nothing to do with opening space for botters - they'd never be able to hold it.
Don't you see? With all respect, this was an article written in an objective style about a meeting between two groups with opposing views, for once getting together to have a sensible and open debate in good order and with polite conduct.
Your comment starts with FAIL etc, please, leave it at the door.
I'll respond to your comments, and ask you to listen, really really listen, and hopefully you'll consider what I've got to say without bluster or hubris.
The climate has ALWAYS changed. No one is debating that. You only need to look at the geographic record to understand how extreme this has been - the world has been ice-free before, and in my humble opinion it is inevitable that it will be again. It's been tropical, it's been locked in ice. These things happen because the climate is a chaotic system and is in a state of flux, constantly.
Here is the point: You say the artic ice has been melting and there are trade routes opening for the first time ever - with respect I suggest you look up "The Northwest Passage" and realise that vikings sailed much of it, and it was open in the early 1900s.... not to open again until 1990s. But that aside, my point is that the argument is not about whether the climate is changing, but what level of influence man has had over this.
Legend has it that there was a king who decided he was so powerful, he could command the tide to stop. Not much to add, other than he drowned.
The idea that a man could command the tide is utterly hubristic, and laughable, even I am sure to you. The idea that man could stop or reverse climate change seems almost as laughable - IF climate change is not man made. Further, why is it up to man to decide that the conditions in 1980 or whatever when this all kicked off are "optimal" and should continue forever after?
From my point of view, the money squandered on climate change is borderline criminal negligence. The good that could be done to reduce preventable disease, provide clean drinking water and medication, improve education and generally make the prospects for millions of people locked in poverty, with even a fraction of the money Europe is prepared to spend on an unproven issue just shows how absurd the whole situation is.
But sadly, I know you won't read this. I know you'll have posted your little rant in the comments, and you'll now go off, confident that you've Won The Internet, with such cutting and informed Last Words on the Matter. If, by some miracle of tolerance or ritalin, whichever gets you through the day, you get to this point, I hope that you'll at least consider the folly of trying to control a system infinitely more powerful that anything you could hope to do short of an atomic bomb, and get on with adapting to survive in a changing and interesting world. It might just be exciting.
"I hate it when he does that"
The only thing watchable about the Star Wars Prequels are the Robot Chicken piss takes
It has Zombies
It has Bill Murray
It manages to squeeze Emma Stone into a pencil skirt
It has a Black Keys track in the soundtrack
"Zombie take down of the day!"
Good shout, Mistress Moderatrix
...that rabid self promoting no-mark ignorant bitch got more exposure in the media?
I'd hoped after she lost her seat that she'd crawl back under whatever rock she came from.
Someone please pour concrete over it.
Fuel efficiency is better served by avoiding braking and accellerating hard.
Especially braking. If you can anticipate the road conditions and smooth out your journey, you'll use a lot less speed.
Cutting your speed - to some extent - will reduce your fuel consumption, but mainly it's about maintaining a steady speed.
As for being safer - your risk of an accident on a motorway is (I read somewhere) more to do with the time you spend on it than the speed you travel. Judging by the collosal number of secondary accidents I saw queuing on the M40 the other day going at 10 mph for an hour seems to cause a huge number of accidents.
Modern cars have better aeordynamics, better brakes, more efficient engines. People are already slowing down to conserve fuel. Safety and fuel efficiency would be better served spending money on repairing the road surfaces than amending speed limits.
Now all we need to do is make it an offence punishable by public beating with a rolled up Daily Mail to sit in the middle lane at 60mph when the inside lane is clear, and traffic could move freely, quickly, and efficiently up and down the motorway.
Only problem if the ConDems do put this one through would be we'd be stuck with it - it's illegal to pull a u-turn on the motorway (boom boom)
...fog, and the AC Cobra (196mph on the M1), according to the - for once attributed - wikifiddling
So you'd have to make it almost completely reflective across a huge em spectrum...
That Ms Quinn will indeed be in the film (but alas not in the nurses uniform from Arkham Asylum I imagine) and played by an ex-Hollyoakes blonde...
I'm a long term T-Mobile user, and I'll be leaving them the second my contract expires.
The network merger with Orange has been an abortion.
Service and coverage is crap and not a patch on what it used to be.
TBH I'd be staggered if anyone could even manage to get 3GB of download in a month from the constantly dropping and slow 3G service offered by t-mobile.
"Why should I have to wait for my email because everyone else around me is streaming video from the 'net?" - when I've paid a premium for my data usage, why should I have to wait cause this service has been over subscribed?
Why don't we stop wasting road fund license, and petrol duty etc, on propping up the expenses of the state, and instead spend it on getting a world class road network which isn't riddled with sink holes and craters?
A decent road surface that would enable cars to brake more effectively would be worth all the speed cameras in the UK.
Removing adverse camber would go a long way too.
Clearing blind spots and improving visibility...
That sort of stuff.
Speed cameras are a source of revenue, it's just the cash they generated wasn't spent on maintaining them.
Spending all the money in the world on road speed punishment devices is never going to eliminate accidents, until they invent an "idiot camera" or something which picks up on those pricks who chug along in their 4x4s on the phone and utterly oblivious to the world.
On many motorways the probablility of having an accident is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend on it. That would actually indicate that going faster would reduce your risk of an accident....?
A) How shameful these WOW players feel their "hobby" is
B) that loads of desperate saddo geeks chasing "I'm a girl really" players are going to have a nasty shock
For sure though, I'll probably be interested to see if any colleagues or future employees names show up against a quick google search of blizzard's servers :)
Piss taking will then ensue...
The Dude Abides
But don't forget my cake icon.
And maybe a "the cake is a lie" icon too.
No icon - boycot them til we get the new ones!
...but I want it decently buried!
There are a few potential benefits to smart metering, but most of them will be difficult to implement.
While I agree with your assessment of the complexity of the Chang of Supplier process, a couple of the main sticking points will be smoothed by having meters which can get poled for information:
The change of supplier reading will be easier and cheaper to obtain, and less liable to gaming by customers who change their suppliers frequently.
The metering details will be potentially at the click of a button away, meaning that your change of supplier process will be far smoother and there will be less data attrition.
We're not going to see loads of people suddenly out of work over this as there is still a legal requirement to eyeball the meter at least once every two years to make sure no one has tried to tamper with it, no wires are hanging off etc - this cannot be done remotely.
You'll still want to get a regular read or so to make sure that what the meter is sending you is correct.
Hard to get to sites or sites which have high cost to serve such as providing "wind ons" on pre payment meters when some pikey has forgotten to charge their meter on a bank holiday Friday, or obstructive paranoids who won't let the meter reader in to the site will become far less burdensome. At a site visit cost in excess of £50 a throw, this means lower costs to the people who are on more standard tariffs, as currently ofgem rules prevent these costs being passed through to the people who cause them in most cases.
Time of day tariffs are a lovely idea, however, there is a peak in demand for a very good reason - are you going to say to your kids "oh hang on til 10pm for your dinner kids, cause that's when the power is cheaper!!" - that said, you could offer significant benefits to consumers who reduce their peak consumption and pass on the benefits that the supplier will get if they can PROOVE it.
The UK energy market is divided into 6 main suppliers, a handful of distribution network operators, a transmission network operator, various "agents" such as the Data collector, data aggregator, meter operator etc. and the settlement agency. The upshot of this is that you have a lot of legacy systems out there (OMG an IT angle!) which are frankly unable to cope with having high granularity settlement for the 26 mill households in this country. Having time of use billing may not have any relation to having time of use settlement - unless the suppliers sort this out there won't be many benefits for them to pass on.
That said, the suppliers that CAN offer effective time of use tariffs will be able to offer highly competitive rates to those consumers who are able to manage their consumption more carefully.
Smart meters have a cost, and have benefits that are not directly available, but get a grip:
If you are prepared to be a good little eco-bunny, you might just stand to see some serious financial benefits for it. If you aren't going to change what you're doing, you won't get stomped on that hard, ofgem won't let them do it.
Plus - 10k sites out of 26 million plus - not really a problem now is it?
Being chased by a nerdy skinny guy with specs on isn't really as scary as a 5m croc though now is it?
Can you imagine the conversation?
- Prof W - "so, erm, like, you remember how we went out and had a drink, and then, you know..." shuffles feet in the dirt and avoids eye contact, "... well things happened, yeah?"
- Dell Inspiron Laptop - "We said we wouldn't talk about that, Kevin - it was a mistake and it'll never happen again"
- Prof W - "Oh yeah, I know, it's just, erm, well...."
- Dell Inspiron Laptop - "Is there something I should know?"
- Prof W - "Look, it burned when I cleared my cache, and so I went and got checked and..."
- Dell Inspiron Laptop - "Oh My Turing, are you trying to tell me...?"
- Prof W - "Just get yourself checked, ok? I had this virus... I'm really sorry...."
- Dell Inspiron Laptop - "First you give me Norton and now this?! You said you'd always upgrade me! You promised me Windows 7! Continue, Retry, Abort? ABORT!!!"
Only in Reading....
Fabulous mouse - and the shape, while it takes a little while to get used to, stops people like me who tend to end up gripping the mouse too hard and getting RSI (no singgering at the back there please) as it sort of encourages you to relax, even when the shit hits the fan.
Plus, it looks wicked. What more could you ask for?
The cake is a lie
But we need a cake icon
...would offend the delicate shell-likes of Ms Moderatrix.
I'd rather risk a bomb than be a fascist.
I'd rather risk a bomb than live in a police state.
Ignorant and heavy handed police like this just create more problems than their tiny and bullying minds could possibly solve.
Not only should he press charges for theft, he should press charges for assault.
That said, if a pig can beat a woman holding a carton of juice on camera and walk away from court, I think he's got no chance.
...lost an inch or two from my leading edge every time I re-entered...
OK, it's half way through 2010 (nearly) so "by 2014" means 3.5 years of output.
1 tonne per year = 3.5 tonnes of water.
That's 3,500L water, at $65 million....
So that'll be $18,571 per Litre!
Bloody hell, that's even more expensive than London!
... became part of National Grid and run the transmission networks. Thats the EHT stuff, or the big gas pipes.
In the liberalised market, the distribution networks are quite seperate, and though any of the parties might have a metering business, these have to be ring fenced and this is enforced quite stringently.
There are lots of distribution networks, and we've seen regionally specced metering before (pre-payment was only very recently unified) so it makes sense that it's BG (by far the biggest supplier) who pushes the smart metering standard.
To be honest, it's a good move by them to make it an open standard so that other suppliers can make sure they are compatible. BG are dominant enough in the market that they could have made it more difficult for the other players to enter this area so easily.
However, make no mistake about it, energy that is metered through the smart network is going to cost you more, cause the additional infrastructure costs will need to be recovered - from the end consumer.
And it's dubious as to how much of an overall energy saving there will be, cause consumers tend to have a lot of inertia. Still, it's a start...
...is like asking a fat man to turn down cake (where is my cake icon btw?!)
The fact that we have any carbon reduction legislation such as the EU ETS, the CCL, the CRC (in the UK) etc. shows that in fact a majority of politicians actually support(ed) the introduction of such legislation at the time it was passed.
Just take a look at the price of petrol/diesel next time you fill up your car. Oil has remained about the same but the cost of diesel has DOUBLED in the last three years. OK, so there are some refinery constraints, and the government has run the pound into the ground so hard that against the dollar we are losing out on anything we import, but a very large slice of this is tax - raised on environmental grounds.
So the vested interest of the politician is to support AGW to justify taking more cash from your pocket.
As for the idea that specific domain knowledge is essential, I completely agree. Sadly this is overlooked, with the "hundreds of scientists sign a letter" argument - the very great majority are not climatologists - and worse still - the data that has been made available to base their decisions on is dubious. Note I don't say questionable - as it seems that we are not permitted to see enough of it to question it.
Crap in = crap out.
There are a lot of eminent climatologists - such as those at very reputable institutions like MIT who question AGW, and are shouted down.
I'm happy to listen to experts, but we need to have BOTH sides of the argument listened to. The UAE needs to redeem it's reputation. A flawed instrument sometimes may give a precise reading, but it doesn't mean it's accurate.
To say Climate science is and always has been our current best knowledge is exactly my point. The problem is when vested interests, either due to scientific funding constraints, or perhaps more worryingly political taxation schemes cause institutions which should be aiming to provide as unbiased as possible view of the world to withhold data from peer review etc.
It's really hard to actually give a historical analogy to this situation without sounding extreme, because what was probably cutting edge debate at the time now seems so utterly banal or frankly insane.
But - two examples spring to mind.
The first is a little spat between the papacy and Copernicus over whether or not the earth was the centre of the universe. Without getting into the philosophy of sophistric viewpoints, it now seems crazy to us to think that it could be seen as any other way than the Earth revolving around the sun.
The second is more relevant - relativity showed that the clockwork universe of Newtonian mechanics was a flawed model, and thankfully provided some of the solutions to the flaws. To quote an old physics adage - it might have been Feynman who said it, I can't be bothered to google it, "anyone who claims to understand relativity, doesn't" - it's complex, it's hard to explain, but it's right. The average Joe in the street will have heard of e=mc2, and will no doubt feel better for it, but won't be able to apply it, or understand the consequences of it.
Both of these examples apply to the climate debate, in that someone has proposed a model - it may be from conventional wisdom, it may be from an understanding created by only having access to part of the picture, but to actively attempt to discourage peer review, to attack through PR and media routes those who would disagree with it, and to not open up methodology and data to examination by other scientists, is malfeasance.
Your proposal is based on the idea that we now have to jump to correct any consequences of AGW, and that it's a safer bet to assume that AGW is happening than not.
I would argue that this is an opinion based on dogma, and that the data and the integrity of the body that produced/analysed it needs to be challenged. If it survives the challenge then I'm delighted, and will back the measures that are introduced to combat the emission of CO2.
On the other hand, if the data in inconclusive, it is a squanderous waste of money and resources to pursue that route.
They could be spent far more effectively on combating poverty, on improving the sanitation in third world countries, on curing disease. Changing the world is not impossible, but it's a question of what you want to tackle, and where the money and resources you have can be best spent.
I'm not a luddite - in fact I am very pro efficiency (which any greeny will agree is the best way to reduce carbon emmissions anyway). I'm very pro towards cutting pollution. But ultimately the atmosphere has been in long periods of higher temperatures than it has been today, just as we have experienced ice ages. It is a chaotic system, and attempting to impose order on a chaotic system is impossible in the long term.
Delightfully ironic as I feel saying it, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Get the data, and the methodology that has been used in "correcting" it, and lay it all out in the open. Let everyone have a look at it. Restore the integrity of the IPCC and the UAE by actually letting more than the selected sympathetic peers review it.
Until that is done, saying "the current best peer-reviewed evidence we have" is unfortunately a worthless prospect.
Shouting louder than another party, or attempting to cut them out of the debate, doesn't make what the IPCC and the UAE are saying right.
The one quote that came up from the leaked emails that rang so true, was the embarassment of the creators of the various climate models that showed large deviation from observed climatic behaviour just a few short years out from inception. To use them to predict out decades, or centuries, to grab sensationalist headlines, it's about as useful as trying to predict the stock market. And that's something which allegedly is in human control, if in a very widely distributed form.
Sadly so far the data that has been released has been shown to be incomplete. Russia - the largest land mass in the world, and potentially a massive impact to any climate change model - have complained that the data that has been included from that which they submitted has been highly selective.
What hasn't been explained, and needs desperately to be, is the corrective methodology that has been applied apparently arbitrarily to the raw data, seemingly to back up the arguments of the pro-AGW scientists.
It's not just a question of raw data, but the methodology of the manipulations and the justifications behind these. And they are sadly lacking at the moment.
I'm actually a climate agnostic - before you try to lump me in with "us" or "them" - I am angry at the apparent manipulation of the facts to fit a model, or a theory. I am scientist enough to know that "the science is settled" is hubristic - people said that about Newton, and they were wrong.
The system that we are talking about is about as complex as it's possible to be. To assume that any existing model covers all the bases is foolish.
But to assess the actual observed RAW data against the models we have will allow a sensible view of which ones are best suited to be developed further. It's almost a Darwinistic process, and would be used in any other branch of science, and openly, in properly peer reviewed journals.
If this is done - and it has NOT been done - and the data shows that this is not some blip in solar output, or some extension of the Atlantic Oscillation, or the various Nino/Ninas, then I'll give it my full support. But right now, it's just looking like a old boys club in cohoots with a government obsessed with greed and self interest.
When it comes down to "who has the best science" rather than "who has the best PR", we can all judge for ourselves as to which theory is right.
Scientist in need of funding - Can I have some money please? It's for science!
Politician - No, piss off little man
Scientist in need of funding - Ahhh, how about if I say that if you fund my research, I'll fiddle the figures so you can justify TAXING AIR!
Politician - Ahhh, now you put it like that! Have some cash! I'll just claim it back on expenses anyway... More port? It is rather excellent, and it's not like I'll have to pay for it...
Until the data is verified by a genuinely independent body, this is a farce.
And a total waste of money. Who will have to pay for the corrupt investigation we've been insulted with to date? Sadly it won't be the one who is milking the system and has his snout in the trough.
Stop the spin, stop the bickering in the media, stop the accusations of denialism or cultist, and look at the data. If it can't speak for itself then it's a pile of shit. Climate models can't explain observed behaviour and should never be included in this.
But fabrication of a story to justify another round of tax on an already overburdened population, whilst making a mockery of our country's institutions in the eyes of the rest of the world; clubbing our industry back into the stone age with draconian legislation and taxation; pretending that all is rosy as our currency tanks against all the rest - stop fooling yourselves.
The science isn't settled. It's about time it was laid out in a genuinely open manner so it can be.
Before we all go wikibothering and pretending to be experts, let me point out that Venus doesn't have a magnetosphere. And that is the major difference between Venus and Earth. All those nice, life giving light gases getting ripped out into space, meaning that pretty much all they gets left is Nitrogen and CO2.
Any way, even if it was all peachy and nice and wasn't a horrific acidic poisonous atmosphere, we'd all die of cancer from the sun.
Incidendently, it's a damn sight nearer to the sun anyway, which is partly why it's so much hotter.
What do you mean, back in the day? I'd have been about 8 you sick little monkey! Mind you, a quick check of the google shows that, well, yeah, ok, back in the day I'd have been a lucky 8 year old
Anyway - I thought all the best musicians went to hell? No Robert Johnson on there then?
...marrying an elephant