This topic was created by Nasty Nick .
The ubiquitous comment facility is one of the things that makes El Reg special - unlike the Beeb which is too scared to let us plebs make remarks about it's news site output.
I notice that the comment options are not available for Lewis Page's piece about Scottish Salmond's daft tidal power plans, and instead we're directed toward the forums.
Please tell me this isn't a new trend for El Reg..?
judging by what you point out and this...
"Or maybe you'd like to discuss just how evil the author of this piece is, and suggest that he be muzzled, sacked or perhaps killed? "
I think LP is getting carried away with delusions of his own importance.
"The comment options are not available for Lewis Page's piece about Scottish Salmond's daft tidal power plans"
Well, of course you can comment: over here in the forums. You may have noticed that the comments section and the forums are more or less (certainly in the backend) the same thing.
"instead we're directed toward the forums"
And here you are, able to discuss away :-)
C.
I get your point that it's the same system / functions on Forum / threads as are offered for the main articles, but it's not the same in that comments are not presented with the article - you have to find your way to the forums and topic(s) you guess will be associated with the article and then find the thread.
Most won't be bothered (granted most probably don't look at the comments anyhow).
The point about the comparison with the Beeb is my main worry. BBC News used to offer comment functions on nearly all of their articles. Now comments are only permitted on a small number of carefully selected news items, which is in my book a subtle form of censorship.
Let El Reg continue to proudly offer ubiquitous comments - no back door censorship here please.
""Let El Reg continue to proudly offer ubiquitous comments"
It's just an experiment, don't panic.
C."
I'll admit I've been a member for years before I realized the forums were a separate section and i suspect you've been finding it a bit underused.
But putting comments straight by the article is better UI design and very convenient.
Now raising awareness of forums existing is a different thing.
When I saw the piece on Alex-the-Salmond I looked forward to being a first poster.
Now, not so much.
Lewis's article did come across like an attack on Scottish independence, with a subnote about some incorrect sums on energy production.
I wonder if it was the same department that got the sums wrong as those who continually, for over 30 years, misled the nation about the true value of Scottish Natural Gas and Oil deposits (google "McCrone report"),
or perhaps it was the same people that have misled the UK populace that Scotland is a "benefits Junkie" when in fact Scotland contributes more income tax per capita than every other region of the UK (exc London) for every one of the last 30 years.
or maybe even it was those who have done the sums whereby through an accounting slight of hand has Scotland (and other UK regions) paying for Crossrail, the new london sewer system - i.e. National assets with a very local benefit package,
or maybe it was the statisticians to worked out that moving Trident nuclear warheads to Devonport would be too risky due to proximity of a local population - forgetting or course, that the UK's 4th largest by population city, Glasgow is less than 25 miles away from Garelochhead and Faslane.
my point, is that the use of statistics and faked up reports are becoming business as usual for Scotland at the moment. The amount of BS being reported by the media here is in overdrive whereas on (frequent) trips to London there's not a pipsqueak about it all. The problem that the Better Together campaign (and a compliant media, incl The Reg) is that they are waging a very negative campaign that is putting off voters. I was once a "no"/Devo max but have moved to Yes due to the utter drivel that has come out of the Better Together campaign
I'm ambivalent about the benefits or otherwise to the Scots of independance, though gut instinct tells me in the short term there won't be much very bad fallout, mostly stupid inconveniences, but in the longer term it will cause big problems for both populations that they really won't need (and the majorities both sides of the border won't have asked for).
My guess is that Lewis really doesn't give a toss about Scotland, Alex Salmon, independance or anything to do with them unless it impinges on his the Holy Turf of Climate Change, and maybe defence - what about prospects for "The Sovereign British Territory of Faslane" - Lewis?
>when in fact Scotland contributes more income tax per capita than every other region of the UK (exc London) for every one of the last 30 years.
Talk about ironic. You do realise that there are quite a lot of people living in London. More than the whole of Scotland in fact. So if you deduct the population of London from both the English contribution and the Scottish contribution, Scotland contributes fuck all. In fact it sponges without actually paying any taxes.
You can twist any "fact" to suit, and politicians and IT salesmen pick the best looking rumour and claim it to be fact. One of the SNP lot said recently on Question Time that Scotland wasn't represented in Westminster as there's only 1 Tory MP, conveniently forgetting that when you add the 11 Lib-Dem MPs the coalition actually has twice the seats in the UK parliament than the SNP.
What people do forget is that Salmond, Sturgeon and their other fishy-named pals are career politicians. If Scotland became independent the seat of political power will move from some far-off ivory tower in Westminster to some far-off ivory tower in Holyrood.
The worst thing that would happen, from an English point of view, is the loss of many Labour seats, making the Tories a much stronger party. And everyone would blame the Scots (apart from the Tories of course). Then again, the SNP types blamed the poll tax on "The English" rather than "The Tories" or "Thatcher" and continue to fuel their prejudice with crap like that.
Then there's the issue of breaking up the Union. The precedent will be set. That means cutting the ties with Wales and Northern Island. The orange half of Glasgow aren't going to like that.
a) the McCrone report didnt mislead anyone about the value of North Sea Oil - it talked about the financial consequences for Scotland becoming independent. You are probably thinking of the ramblings of a 95 year old man which have been proven incorrect. Production estimates made int he early 70s proved to be fairly accurate - the fact that the value of oil extracted was higher was due to an unforeseen increase in the price of oil. Oil price increase arnt necessarily a one-way bet for any producing country, as it results in increased costs as well as increased revenues.
As for the location of Faslane with regards to Glasgow, and Devonport to Plymouth - there is no comparison. Devonport is to Plymouth as Pacific Quay is to Glasgow - right in the heart of the city.
Interestingly enough, Kings Bay in Georgia is a similar distance from Jacksonville, a city of similar size to Glasgow as Faslne is from Glasgow. Fewer mountains there though.
"Perhaps he means "world's best site for tidal power where plans for tidal power have not yet been formally scrapped"."
I was under the impression that it was only the full plan for the Severn (ie crossing the whole Bristol Channel) that had been scrapped, and that the smaller options (enclosing smaller areas) were still on the table.
Oh, and good point about why no direct link from the article. Maybe it's because they get a bit worried now when Lewis Page puts out anything about the environment.
Given Lewis's innate ability to lambast multiple factions in the space of a paragraph it doesn't surprise me this is directed directly to the forums. Overly sensitive jocks, tree huggers and mainstream journalists are all likely to get a bit miffed by this one.
However he does make a valid point in how some of these schemes are over egged, over politicized and then fall flat on their face when looked at rationally. Personally, I believe alternative energy sources can make a contribution to the UK's energy mix, if only to ensure a variety of sources, however they will never amount to more than single digit percentage (averaged).
We are a getting to the point where people will be getting fleeced soon by some of these schemes. Underfunded AIM listed 'vehicles' taking advantage of this confusion, flogging hare-brained schemes to mugs thinking they will make a profit because they can't get it in a savings account. The result will be minimal private investment and an even greater burden on the bill payer / tax payer.
Well it looks damm big, but what parts were they planning to dam?
I'll also notice that hydroelectric systems (if the dam is properly constructed) can last indefinitely.
Hoover dam anyone? Around the century mark now I think.
Well Alex you should have know that no one was going to put serious wonga on the table without a thorough investigation to prove that assertion of yours.
On the general topic of "Free Scotia" they wanted to join the Euro, now reckon that's pants so can they please keep the Pound? Alex seems to want a sort of "pick and mix" constitution and economy, part of the UK when it suits him, and not when it doesn't.
I think it's time for prudent Scots people to start looking through all of his promises, assertions, aspirations and plans.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
