I was just wondering whose arse they pulled that figure out of...
5837 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
I was just wondering whose arse they pulled that figure out of...
> I thought being warm wasn't going to be the problem?
Note the bracketted (!) after warm, implying irony...
> This isn't an argument about whether we should be doing something about climate change (see my support for a carbon tax). It's an argument about whether these campaigners have understood the economics of the thing they're trying to campaign upon.
Congratulations, Tim, you have pointed out that they have incorrectly re-arranged the deckchairs on the Titanic! I'm sure that makes you feel *so* much better and will keep you warm(!) as the ship sinks...
> The part where you claimed the Graun is deliberately and flagrantly lying in an attempt to shift the market price.
Are you sure you're talking to the right person here?
> Toned down by the subs (probably wisely) on the grounds that it was truly insulting and most rude.
Right, thanks for making it clear that you can't put together a good argument *without* calling people names.
> you really have missed what I've said about climate change around the place, haven't you? [...] That it's not actually a problem that the market unadorned can solve
Well, you're right that "markets place very little value on things beyond the near future", but when someone suggests actually *using* market forces to influence that behaviour, somehow you don't like that because they use an "inappropriate discount rate", not whether it's a good idea or not.
> You appear to be accusing the Graun of deliberate (and illegal) price manipulation.
I do? Please can you point out the part of my post which caused you to draw this fantastic conclusion?
... another piece of TW "journalism" that relies on cherry-picking bits of a story for one more round of Lefty-Bashing.
We start off with a classic "if you don't know what I (claim to) know, then you're not allowed to have an opinion" and assertions of "ignorance" there and then throw in a bit of name-calling and ad hominem attacks ("dunderheads"? "Crayon eating", Tim? Really, is that the best you can come up with?) and we get a classic piece of Worstall trolling.
Naturally TW ignores where the piece says "The intention is not to bankrupt the companies, nor to promote overnight withdrawal from fossil fuels – that would not be possible or desirable" and "Divestment serves to delegitimise the business models of companies that are using investors’ money to search for yet more coal, oil and gas that can’t safely be burned. It is a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels" because they don't fit in with his agenda of telling us how wonderful the Market is for solving all the world's problems (as if it hadn't got us into them in the first place...)
"...whose commitment to the cause is strong enough" etc etc
Nor in the UK or most anywhere else, I don't doubt. But that's still not going to stop our fearless leaders deciding that the Security Services need even more powers to monitor us and control us and check up on what we're reading and who we're talking to and what we're looking at and...
PS I recently travelled by air and I was not at all, in any way, shape or form, counting the number of simple ways of bypassing the Security Theatre BS that is supposed to "protect" us (or, at least, make us think that our leaders are "doing something" about the problems which their actions have caused...) that I could see without even bothering to put my mind to it...
*cough* seven *cough*
... the vast majority of those who end up being unable to vote wouldn't have voted Tory in any case, so as far as the Cabinet Office are concerned, there's no problem there...
> Is it too cynical to wonder that these enquiries are being publicised partly to counter the leaks about cover-ups of sex crimes?
I think the answer to that is a definite "No, it's definitely not too cynical".
"...since Operation Ore back in 2002"
And we all know just how well *that* turned out, don't we?
How many people this time will be told "say you're guilty and you'll get a Caution so we can tick off another 'success' in our book or we'll drag you through the Courts and give your name to the media, so even when you're found Not Guilty your reputation and career will still be destroyed"?
... "pour encourage les autres" in Swedish?
Oh, just like in the US and the UK you don't shoot the guy whose failed in their responsibility to make sure the system was secure in the first place, you punish the guy who demonstrated the problem because nobody would listen.
... can they get it to go up to 11?
... noodly appendages there?
As opposed to the poison of legal drugs such as nicotine and alcohol?
"... but that doesn't mean we'll not be pushing ahead with it, just that we won't be telling you about it..."
... icann.sucks ?
"...prior to being put on Twitter, it may not be a violation of this policy"
So if it's already been on a revenge porn site elsewhere, that's ok with Twitter???
... .scam .ripoff .cashingin and, of course, .icannsmegabonusplan
What's dodgy about it? Pterry even asked for a signed copy of my catalogue!!
(Where do you think he got the idea for that cupboard full of "interesting" toys in Making Money?!)
> he never once bought a round.
He never needed to, people at Discworld Cons were practically queueing up to buy him drinks!
- Affordable Graham :-/
Is this a mistake, because, if not, two things come to mind:
1) Did nobody from their phone operating compay *notice* this?
2) Based on those figures, they would call the entire population of the country in a fortnight at most.
Now I know some people get multiple calls a day, but even so, it seems an astonishingly large figure.
Hazel Blears said that it's not mass surveillance because the Security Services do not have the ability to monitor everyone's e-mails, web traffic, tweets and so on.
What she did *NOT* say is whether they *would like* to be able to do this and have it on their wish-lists for when the technology improves so that they can!
And we will tell you what is "illicit content" in a list that will only ever grow longer and longer...
Yes, I expect him to grow up to be a parent...!
Searching for "Cows with Guns" is much better ;-)
"Mouth breathers"... "bleating"... pedantic quibbling over "it simply isn't tax avoidance"...?
Has TW been taking writing lessons from Matt Bryant?
"The responsibility for acts of terror rests with those who commit them, but a huge burden of responsibility also lies with those who act as apologists for them"
- Philip Hammond
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Ah, but they're probably guilty of *something", they just haven't been caught for it yet!
... someone in the corridors of power seems to be getting it!
... that the above post is meant to be ironic!
> So you're in favour over having a British bill of rights that can be suspended at any time by the government of the day when it feels necessary? no thanks.
Err, WTF are you talking about??
No, I am *NOT* in favour of that, but that is what both the Tories *AND* UKIP want as I pointed out!
> Oddly enough UKIP are not one of the Totalitarianism parties, I was quite shocked....
You are also quite wrong. To quote from UKIP's own page:
– UKIP will withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
– We will repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a new British Bill of Rights. The interests of law-abiding citizens & victims will always take precedence over those of criminals.
If you look at the sort of things proposed for a "British Bill of Rights", what they are really about is *reducing* people's Rights by effectively saying that only the people we *like* will be entitled to have their Rights protected and others will lose protections. In other words, "Some are more equal than others"!
... that means it both will *and* won't work...
You mean like all those drivers out there who all know and obey the current Highway code?
The ones who don't blast past cyclists with a cigarette paper's clearnace, the ones who don't overtake cyclists and then turn left, the ones who don't stop illegally on zig-zag lines or at the advanced stop line for cyclists, the ones who...?
BTW before anyone starts with the usual BS, I also think that cyclists should obey the rules of the road, but generally they are only putting *their own* lives at risk, whereas someone who is in charge of a couple of tonnes of metal moving at high speed is putting *others* at risk when they do something stupid and dangerous.
Hmm, 7 thumbs down.
Seems like on El Reg there must be either a) a lot of idiotic pedestrians or b) a lot of car drivers who think that if they have to sit in a queue then so should everyone else!
And I'd like one for those pedestrians who think that because the *cars* have stopped, it's ok to stroll across the road between them, not considering that there may be a biker filtering perfectly legally between the stopped vehicles...
It will be replaced with .atos .g4s .capita...
... it's ok if *we* are doing it...
"- full of the kind of people you wouldn’t want to share an elevator with, let alone date.”
Erm, I think as far as most people are concerned it is *already* like that!
You're clearly a dangerous subversive for not using a proper all-American operating system (well, Windows) and must therefore be locked up for the good of society!
The problem is that the Police can't (or won't) do anything about it.
I had a scam caller who I kept stringing along for a while, then asked if his mother knew that her son was a liar and a thief and would she be proud that he was a scammer who tries to rip people off?
He started getting abusive, so I returned the compliment, then hung up after which he phoned back and yelled "I know where you live and I'm coming to rape you!" (Yeah, sure)
However I decided to contact the Police, but after coming round and taking some details they basically said "we can't do anything because the number was withheld".
Now it's my understanding that this only means that the phone company (Virgin Media) won't pass on the number if I do a 1471, not that they don't have the number at all, but there seemed to be a lack of interest or desire to actually do anything about this by getting the number off Virgin to take it further.
It is not what that theft would achieve, it's that El Reg should be setting a good example!
So why were they...
... oh US Patent Office, enough said.
"...this Stegosaurus probably would have had quite a large rear end"
It may be fair to say that, but given how dangerous it is to answer your gf's question "does my bum look big in this?" think how risky it would be to say anything to a 1.6 tonne dinosaur!
> whataboutery is an infallible sign of somebody with no argument and no inclination to work at constructing one.
Sorry, were you talking about Morozov or Worstall...?
You mean they'd actually been there?
Or is that just not cool-sounding enough?
"... that both warns the cyclist when a vehicle is overtaking,"
Thus removing the need for Lifesaver shoulder checks? Hmm.
> and alerts motorists of the presence of the e-bike by illuminating handlebar lights.
Thus meaning motorists don't need to make proper observation because the bike will do it for them.