Posts by Mark 3397 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Oct 2007
And the reason why that happens is because the diffraction pattern is strong enough to appear.
so the brighter the star, the more visible the spokes.
And the galaxies aren't bright enough (contrasty enough, really, since the spokes appear for each dot and so merge each other out and share the overall brightness) to show spikes.
So the ones with spokes aren't distant galaxies.
Which is why Joe mentioned them.
I suspect he knows as much as you do about telescopes. Maybe more. He does at least know what it MEANS better than you.
Sheesh.
Try running a chemistry business with only MBA's.
Try running a burger joint without any serving staff, just managers.
Hell, see how well the company does when you sack janitors. Few weeks later (couple of months tops) your business is failing. Get rid of the board and your business will run just fine. Maybe less efficiently, but it WILL run.
So why do these jobs pay more than the people whose work MAKE THE BUSINESS????
Because they are expecting a payment of that size. And it is accepted by those with the same idea. They aren't concerned about the coalface workers because they aren't coalface workers and never will be.
Who was therefore so well know that even the person emulating them doesn't know their name.
If it weren't so stupid, it would be hilarious.
But seriously, as the opening paragraphs put it, this is as much or more the fault of the PR machine for these "stars" as it is the fans themselves.
What are you supposed to think when they're waggling danglies on stage or only staying in their clothes because of judicious use of Super Glue (probably)?
Never understood why the stars hate the attention when they demand it.
What about the miles thick lump of ice on the worlds biggest Island: Greenland.
Unless we build a REALLY BIG wall around it, this will end up in the ocean where it wasn't before.
What about the ice on the South Pole? Lots of it not in the ocean at the moment.
Oh, I know why, you don't want to know anything that doesn't confirm your preselection bias.
Do we get eggs from dead cow? Do we get sugar from a cows udders???
Now, just eat 100% steak. No gravy. No sauce. Nothing.
Pretty bloody boring, isn't it.
So if you're going to ask for "pure wheat", I ask for "pure meat". Neither are appetising.
How about "pure rice"? No worse.
Pure corncob? Pure Tomatoes are lovely (for those who like them, I don't). Apples? No need to do anything other than pick them.
Try chowing down on dead cow without cooking it.
Though I think all people demanding the removal of livestock are forgetting that the best way to turn scrubland into something humans can eat is to let a goat at it then eat the goat, you are forgetting deliberately something:
The wheat you burn today will be releasing carbon for the wheat you'll burn next season.
It is called "the carbon cycle".
See also "the water cycle". I've never heard anyone say that drinking water from a river will make the rivers dry up, or the seas run dry. So you DO know what a cycle is. Just not when it's GW concerned.
For two reasons
1) They are looking to change the gut bacteria so that they produce less methane as their waste product. Less farty cows.
2) Kangaroos survive much better, taste really very nice and don't fart quite so much. Last I recall, 'roo burgers and 'roos themselves were fairly common in AUS.
When do you put an extra 's after a world that ends in "s". Etc.
Lots of the rules don't really make sense. They were latin rule shoehorning beside a germanic construct with french words added in for good measure. In an arabic alphabet. Modified to fit in with what was figured at the time to be acceptable and agreeable.
Of course people get it wrong. We're trying to obey a "law" that has so many "unless" or "except" clauses punching holes in it, you have to be an English Major to have remembered them all.
Nah, they won't be separate companies soon. So the problem will be moot.
Look, banks, if you don't want rate tarts, stop offering incentives and deals to people to move to YOUR bank/card/whatever that you don't offer to your current customers. Because for every customer to moves to your bank will have left someone else's bank. And that someone else could be YOU.
What fuckwits are they, eh?
Worse, there's no need to keep your DNA if you're innocent. If you are a suspect they can take your DNA there and then and check it against the DNA of the person that did the crime. There's no need to keep a record because you still have all your DNA available.
It does matter if you've read it because your rant started off with
" Oh yes indeed, that method is how we came to the global cooling scare - right?"
Which would be wrong if you knew what you were talking about. Because that WASN'T how we came to the global cooling scare.
Given that you are ignorant of any evidence and willful in your attempts to bring up lies to bolster your position, why would anyone think that anything else you blather on about is any more true or well researched than that line quoted there?
None.
So until you've proven you are able to back your wildass theories up with real thought, real evidence and real truth, what you say will remain a lie.
"How does referring to it add to the debate of the flaw of your post of 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT?"
What flaw. Strange that you say later
"So do you care to say exactly where and how was I “talking bollocks”?"
Rather ironic, really.
And you are talking bollocks in the exact sense of "The Global Cooling Scare whas from scientists" is bollocks. It wasn't. If you'd READ the scientific paper you would know that. That, precisely, is where you're talking bollocks.
"If I haven't “been honest” can you state exactly where and how?" You have not honestly said you never read it, never honestly retracted the incorrect statement and never honestly answered by questions.
"Can you give, and substantiate, any reason why you shouldn’t answer my questions?" Yes. You never answered mine. Only accused me. You have lied because you heard a quote somewhere that suits your bias and it was wrong, so any answer to your questions will be ignored if they can't further your agenda.
"How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?" You can't. And again an dishonest question. Global Warming is there. The CO2 from human output is large and definitively and unambiguously there. And detecting something that is there, even when swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason is possible.
"Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?" Yes.
"Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period" Such as what?
"How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?" Because "noise" is the opposite of "signal". "Noise" is the elements that hide the signal because their cause is unrelated so reducing the correlation unless longer sampling is done.
There, Now I've answered yours.
Now, answer mine:
Have you read the reports from scientists on the global cooling in the 70's?
How many were there?
What external influence beyond the timescale is not taken into account in GCMs?
Why are you adamant in your insistence that there is nothing anthropogenic about the recent global warming? And even seem to be demanding there IS no warming.
I've answered yours. Now you do mine.
Nope, did you READ the single paper in the scientific journal that two newspapers decided to run with?
No, because if you had, you would know that you're talking bollocks.
Hang on, I'm being too restrictive. You could have read it and decided to spout bollocks anyway.
The paper concluded that aerosols were cooling the planet and that unless they were reduced, could cause a global cooling catastrophe.
Now, a timeout here. Note: the clean air act came in some time after. This reduced the aerosols. This was a political change and was not open to modelling. So back into the paper summary.
The paper then said that the effect of CO2 was increasing and that this could eventually render this global cooling redundant in any case. But that more study was needed into both aerosol and anthropogenic CO2 emissions was needed before any conclusion could be reached.
That last bit was ignored by the papers. Just the headline "Global Cooling!" got out. Nothing about how the authors themselves were not sure if this was a real issue. Nothing about how more study would be needed to see if it could happen. Nothing about how a change in the aerosols being produced could negate the whole paper. Nothing about how CO2 could still cause global warming that would swamp the cooling effect of the dirty air.
And because you either didn't read or don't care to repeat the contents (because it would spike your argument) you only spout the misinformation that the papers decided to print up.
You sad pathetic sheep.
How do we get from
a=RAND()*10000+1
to
Global Cooling scare? Which scare, I may say was not one from the scientists but from two (yes, that's right TWO) newspapers. Have you ever read the paper? I bet you haven't.
You aren't lost, you don't even know where you're going.
Strange though, isn't it, as soon as you take the woodsman out of the woods where you KNOW that you don't shoot what you THINK *might* be a deer in the bushes in case it turns out to be Uncle Ted, then put them in the army where, unless you KNOW it's one of yours, shoot away. If they weren't a target by then, they will be now!
Also, did you pull a gun on them? What if they decided to be REALLY stupid and attack you (they were drunk)? Shoot them? Assault.
Pulling a gun on someone should ONLY be done when you have only bad options left and you are willing to kill with it. Without that will to kill, you're displaying a weapon that is more a danger to you than the opponent.
Nicely said.
Howwever...
:-)
The "So assuming that someone who breaks a law will break any law is pretty dodgy thinking." isn't as dodgy as you may think.
If it is a "crime" that isn't violent, why would a normal, law abiding citizen pull a gun on them? They wouldn't. So that segment is out: the gun would not come into it.
If it is a crime that IS violent, then there's more likelihood of a gun being thought of as a useful tool by the criminal. Especially if you MAY have a gun yourself. After all, the criminal isn't thinking of giving you a sporting chance, are they.
But in those violent cases, you may consider pulling a gun. And since violence is the criminal's intent, the jump to pulling a piece out is a lot smaller. Maybe even non-existent if their victim may be packing.
Something most UK residents don't want, either.
You used to have slaves in the US, but don't any more (well, officially). So why is that not bad? It was, at the time, said to be the end of the agricltural base of the entire united states.
No longer seems needed, however.
Just like guns.
And the only ones likely to use them are bad guys. The only ones likely to take them everywhere are bad guys. The only ones willing to shoot you are bad guys.
I fail to see how that is an argument for having an armed populace.
"So you are in favor of rule by mob."
Where did I say that?
I didn't.
I said that if the populace really wanted out, arming them would be negative since armed response would then be more likely to be considered appropriate and that the government had better weapons and other standard paraphernalia of war, making the small arms of the populace no more effective than sticks and stones.
That does not mean mob rule is right, but then again, arming a mob doesn't turn it into any sort of not-mob, so the americans/pro gun brigade seem to be arguing for mob rule too, which you happily seem to skip over as irrelevant.
I fail to see where the "problem" is.
Criminals had guns before. Criminals are already committing an illegal act, so actually CARRYING one isn't a problem for them, but not "normal behaviour" for the non-crim element. They are also ready for violence whereas this is not a "normal behaviour" and so those who are criminals are more likely and less loath (and hence quicker) to use the guns than your ordinary person who hopes like hell they aren't going to have to kill. As opposed to "If I kill them, I'll get an extra five years" that is the criminals' reason not to shoot.
So the gun doesn't make you safer and pulling it out only escalates the situation to one where someone could die. Worse, it's far more likely it will be you.
So I don't see where the problem is.
For your idea of "securing a gun", it is now useless in the case of a burgular unless they are sufficiently noiuse that they make a noise a long way away and wake you up with plenty of time to
a) retrieve the gun quietly
b) find the ammo (this can blow up without a gun, so that needs to be secured too)
c) load the gun
d) find the crim before he finds you. 'cos he knows you could be armed and already has a gun. Worse, he's in YOUR house and knows that any target is available wheras you don't want to shoot your teenage kid who got home late, so must identify the target first.
Or you could not have a gun. That's far more safe. And makes carrying a gun unnecessary and liable to make the crime so much more traceable (unless you chuck the gun). So the crim less likely to carry any gun.
As regards "how is a burglar going to climb through the window..." How is he going to make it away with the big bag of swag? And ever heard of machine pistols? It's not like they are looking for a marksmanship merit badge from scouts, is it.
Have a look at "Get Shorty". The bit with the two mobsters in Harry Zimm's office. One has a gun in concealed carry. One has one pointing out in the hand toward the other mobster.
Barbone: You must be one of those fast draws I keep hearing about
And shoots him trying to get the gun out.
Now, if you're being menaced by a mugger with a gun, how are you going to get the gun out without getting a bullet in the brain pan first? Do you practice fast draw? If you do, a concealed carry makes it far, far slower to draw a gun.
If you're being menaced by a mugger without a gun, you are by default in the wrong. You have shot an unarmed man or if he wrests it from you, they have a gun registered in your name to shoot you with.
Cool.
One of the problems with owning a gun for protection is that normal people DO NOT LIKE KILLING.
So you wave a gun around and use it to threaten. But if they have a gun, they are likely to get it out and shoot YOU. 'Cos they are already breaking the law one way and will likely have done this before, so are less hesitant about using it.
It's the same with protecting yourself from "the government". You think it will be solved by threatening? No. The forces arrayed have already been briefed and you are the enemy. They don't know why you do this, but you are armed and they have been told you're bad. They are ready to shoot.
Armed populace will only throw over a tyrant when the general populace are ready to kill (not just die, kill) without hesitation to get their way. Otherwise they are holding a weapon that is more dangerous to themselves than their opponents. And their opponents do not have the same problem as you.
If it isn't at least beta level, it isn't the product. If it is to be a review, it needs to be run by equipment as a valid review. Not on supplied hardware (unless such hardware is explicitly stated along with the retail price of that kit).
Else it isn't a review, it's an ad.
And it doesn't matter if it is "editorial decision", the BBC cannot run ads. Even if the editor wants to.
Well it depends on how long it SHOULD last.
A car should have, when new, NO DEFECT within 3 years or such defect is fixed FOC. And if it develops a defect within 6 months, it is a defective product and a full refund should be available.
A plastic toy should last a year. If it develops a fault in the first month (plastic is less durable than steel), it is defective.
And so on.
If the manufacturers cannot manage that level then the defect rate is far too high and they should look at their quality assurance for how to do it RIGHT.
This is not rocket science.
If necessary, make the manufacturers/retailers say what full refund on defect system is available and then the cheap people who don't care will buy the more defective cheap version and those who want something that lasts won't and will go for the more expensive but more robust one.
"Ever heard of the Irish Republican Army ?"
Yes, they were funded from the US and given training in the ME. And it still didn't work. Ever heard of Stormont (spelling?)? Only when the political arm were brought out and started talking rather than demanding did anything change.
"These people, on the whole, genuinely _believe_ that they are EMF sensitive. Calling them f*tards, etc is just childish and mean."
No meaner than making shit up because you don't want the eyesore. This has FUCKALL to do with sensitivity. These morons don't LIKE it and they are making shit up to make it fit the laws.
Please, prove they _genuinely_ believe this bullshit.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
