* Posts by Jamie

9 posts • joined 24 Jun 2008

Press proves immune to FBI's anthrax corrective


Re: Silicon/Silica

The article does use both, but in different contexts.

The cells [naturally] _contain_ silicon (probably as silicon dioxide=silica, but possibly as a more complex compound).

The spores were claimed to be _coated_ with silica (silicon dioxide) which can be used to weaponize them. (But they weren't; they just contain silicon.)

At least they didn't contain silicone...

Internet Explorer - now with 35% less FAIL



Yes, you are right. The use of "fail" in this way is a relatively recent phenomenon. That doesn't make it wrong.

Who would have thought it, the English language is evolving...

Jeremy Clarkson tilts at windmills

Thumb Down

Re: Re: @mark - exaggerations

"Yes, you were complaining. You took the letter of what was said and villified it."

On no I didn't (Oh yes you did). I just said (well, meant to say) that anyone who found they had to check their speedo *more* when passing a camera shouldn't be driving. As others have said, you should know what speed you are doing anyway (within the limit or not).

Other than that, I agree completely about the futility of trying to leave space between you and the car in front. Although, If you stay in lane 1 (the "slow lane" as I believe some people refer to it) then you can usually have all the space in the world. The M1 seems to be the worst for this: recently I drove down lane 1 at a steady 70 (or more:-)) with two lanes of solid traffic doing less than 50 to my right. What is that all about?

p.s. there is another Jamie posting here - I can't vouch for anything he said!


@mark - exaggerations

Oi! I wasn't the one complaining about exaggeration.

I was only pointing out, to the person who complained about exaggeration, that it was "his" side of the argument who were saying things like "all the time" or "constantly", not us sanctimonious hypocrites (we never exaggerate, ever).

*I* assumed they just meant "quite a lot" or "more than usual".

But, really, I don't care: if you want to drive over the speed limit then do it. But you are breaking the law so expect that occasionally you will be caught and fined.

I suppose you can reduce the chances of that by, as some suggest, breaking the law in another way (false plates etc).

Or campaign to get the law changed. (I neither know nor care what the speed limit "should be".)

Or move to another country where they don't have speed limits (or don't enforce them).

Your choice. But you can't really whinge that you got fined for breaking the law when you knew that was one of the possible outcomes. That is like complaining about getting a hangover after a big night out.


@Watching the speedo

"Not *all* the time, the ridiculous exaggeration used by the sanctimonious posters."

Actually, "all the time" was a direct quote from the morons who think the roads should be a free for all: no speed limits, no white lines, no crash barriers, no driving licenses and free booze. Or maybe I am exaggerating...


Bad drivers and @Onionman

A few people have made comments about speed cameras being dangerous because:

> drivers to spend all their time with their eyes glued to their speedometers

>they spend more time looking at the speedo when driven through average speed camera zones

These people really shouldn't be allowed to drive. How about changing driving licenses so they only last 5 years and then you take another test. I think driving is probably a privilege rather than a right.

Re "Sactimonious hypocrisy" [sic]: I have had a few speeding tickets. I'm not whinging about being "taxed". I broke the law; I got a fine. Get over yourself.


@eastern block type oppression

"traffic restrictions being the obvious example, are simply not agreed with by the majority of the population: and so if this really was a democracy, would not be there to be enforced"

Yeah! How dare they make us drive on the left. It must be because they are commies! Why can't I choose which side of the road to drive on?

You really don't get the idea of "representative democracy" do you?

If all laws were simply made on the basis of what "the majority" want [and it would be interesting to know how you determine that - what *is* a fair voting system] then we would still have the death penalty for murder, child abuse, sheep rustling, etc. And no doubt unlimited detention without trial for terrorists and pedos.

Not a world I would want to live in. I think anarchy would be preferable.

p.s. I agree that our current democratic system is far from perfect. Some form of proportional representation might improve it (but also introduce its own problems). But it is probably not significantly worse than any other.

Sat nav blunder places The Rock in Skegness


@blind reliance

"300,000 drivers in the UK had accidents because of sat nav"

Maybe we should introduce cameras to detect them...

Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap


Confirmation bias

Some fantastic examples of confirmation bias here.

Hundreds of scientists spend decades studying climatology and the geophysics of climate change and get articles published in peer reviewed journals.

But they are obviously part of (a) a government plot to raise taxes, (b) an eco-media-mafia, (c) some sort of green/communist plot to destroy our way of life.

One man writes a book and suddenly all truth and light is revealed. Clearly he has no personal agenda or bias. And obviously he has made no errors in his calculations.

The book is simply another useful (more useful than most newspaper editorials or Bush's mumblings) contribution to the debate on energy policy which, after all, is inevitably about what is politically and economically acceptable as well as the underlying science.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019