OK I admit defeat.
Where did he qualify for the £2 discount?
190 posts • joined 20 Apr 2007
OK I admit defeat.
Where did he qualify for the £2 discount?
what has artificial insemination got to do with this?
"That's a Total Inability To Support Usual Performance, rather than any anatomical reference."
Actually tits-up is an anatomical reference; however the tits are the teats on the udder of a dead cow lying on its back. See also "tits-up in a ditch".
Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?
Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.
Toaster: How 'bout a muffin?
Lister: Or muffins. Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks.
Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man.
God forbid that the nation's young people should do their bit to ensure the nation's future supply of young people, thus reducing our need to import folks from abroad to work and pay taxes here.
So, presumably, these habitats will have the form factor of a 12" cube of magnesium alloy covered with water-based black paint?
We have Management. And the Agile process.
So one 'manager' is the 'scrum master', and another is the 'product owner', and no sooner are the words "That's a stupid idea, because ..." out of my mouth than I'm being told I'm awkward, unhelpful, aggressive, obstructive etc etc etc and being threatened with being thrown off the Agile development team. [A threat they can't carry out for fear of the ensuing deluge of requests, "can I be thrown off the Agile development team too please?"]
Yes, old folk with age related presbyopia (aw crap: nowadays, that includes me) do like bigger text on devices that we hold at arms' length. Stupidly-large text is a feature. [Tip: in a noisy bar, use it when transcribing your drinks order onto your phone, which you can then show to some poor barsteward to avoid having to bellow into their ear.]
But, as with any feature, the user experience needs to be practical, and perhaps even pleasant, otherwise the device involved will be designated as available for float-testing.
Don't forget John Young's sandwich on Gemini III.
Didn't even have mustard on it, apparently.
Good Lord. I'm reading your excellent post and wondering if someone has restored an unauthorised tape backup of my brain.
Neutron bombs? No, no, a thousand tiny selectable-yield H-bombs all alike.
And if you proposed taking off from Croydon, I'd object: that's close enough to where I live to mess up my TV reception.
Seven tiny humanoid skeletons found buried at the back of a cave.
An international arrest warrant has been issued for a Miss S White.
"world's smallest thermonuclear detonation"
Not necessarily. If you get good at multiple-stage device design, you can do cute things like selectable-yield, and other general tuning of the second stage. The devices proposed for the later bigger Project Orion craft would have been designed to generate the minimum of fallout and be selectable-yield up to about 5kt. It's entirely possible the US tested a weapon along those lines prior to adoption of the nuclear test ban.
Yes -- the supply of prerecorded material to buy or rent may have been a factor for some, but for many, the choice was between a Betamax tape that could record 60min or 120min, and a VHS tape that could record 180min.
Although neither showed one of V2000's other tricks -- like an audio compact cassette, you could flip a cassette over and record on the other side.
Once upon a time, a long long time ago, when you needed a delivery format to send your album studio masters off to the CD manufacturing plant, Betamax could well have been what you chose.
it looks like buttocks to me.
Is Pluto mooning us?
to me that looks more like a nasty gouge with a bottle top while the umpire's not looking; have a quick pick at the seam too while you're at it.
Mmmm yes. Let's invent a superb new battery technology that's sufficiently cheap and practical for road vehicle applications, and build a nuclear reactor farm the size of Brussels to add a few terawatts of electricity generation capacity?
Personally, I'd put the nuclear reactor farm the size of Brussels in Brussels -- but that will never work, there's not enough cooling water.
Unless of course you meant "we'll end up with the hippies bleating about direct-shine emissions from our under-the-bonnet deuterium oxide microfusors".
C'mon, you know the story even if you've only ever seen the sequence from Fantasia ... Mickey Mouse is the magician's apprentice, bored with carrying buckets of water, so he goes to the forbidden Teach Yourself Spelling book (a volume which I can recommend to many of my fellow commentards...) and changes a broom into an automaton to fetch and carry for him; but matters get out of hand, with hundreds of automata, and flooding.
Let's select some events we saw and arrange them in timeline/parachronological order...
(*) The fourth Doctor discusses "What would you do if a child you saved became a dictator responsible for the deaths of millions?"
(*) The current Doctor finds he's encountered that dilemma, and he leaves Davros to die
(*) Clara and Missy get zapped
(*) The current Doctor returns that dilemma, or close nearby, and threatens to kill Davros himself
(*) If the Tardis has been destroyed, how did the Doctor return to Skaro bearing a Dalek weapon?
(*) How did the Doctor find himself being manipulated into saving Davros in a way that leads to Davros creating the Daleks?
(*) The fourth Doctor chose not to destroy the Daleks saying that much good had come about because they'd existed, and there would be other opportunities to stop them ... has he set himself up with an opportunity?
I'd say: the Doctor has broken one of the fundamental rules, he's returning to an established timeline to change events, and there will be a spew of events that get out of hand, and causality paradoxes galore. He wants to change events so that Clara and Missy do not die, and defeating the Daleks is a handy pretext to justify changing events. We've seen Clara in scenes pre-series trailers that we haven't seen yet; there will be more Clara, for a bit at least. I'm guessing we shall see the origin of the Impossible Girl, but, eventually, the Doctor will have to choose between letting Clara die and destroying time itself.
Of course, all this is good for those of us wanting the lid to pop off the Time War, because then somehow we get both more Daleks than you can count, and the return of Gallifrey and the Time Lords -- except we won't, because that's the special sauce Moffatt uses to keep us wanting, and anyway there isn't the budget.
I'd also compliment the production crew for the sets and sound effects ... Dalek architecture, ambient ticking noises etc are present as per both the DVD releases of Hartnell-era stories and the recent "An Adventure In Time And Space".
"cookies"? I missed that. It's important.
I was trying to guess the author.
I got to the end of page 1 without my falling asleep, so it's not Trevor Pott.
There was one massive clue that tells me it wasn't Andrew Orlowski.
I did consider Lewis Page, and Dom O'Connor, and Dabbsy.
The tendency to CAPITALIZE things the author thinks is important is a big clue I have yet to fully investigate.
But "cookies", in quotes? OK then, someone literate, but, not deep in the IT side of things that is this site's core interest. So ... no, I'm not going to reveal the name I have in mind.
Ah. But, what TV set am I going to be buying on religious grounds next February when I subscribe to Amazon Prime?
I suggest, yes they would.
After a short period they would conclude even they could not physically and/or financially smoke fast enough to saturate the enzyme.
The truly desperate would then turn to unlicensed providers of other substances, looking for something else the enzyme couldn't process but which would stimulate the brain. This -- either the drug dealers, or the substances they might offer -- might or might not end happily.
A generally similar state of affairs involving the protagonist's liver transplant is a significant plot element in Neuromancer (William Gibson, 1984).
Oooh no, oh dear me no, that would never do for the Apple iCar.
Just like all the other Apple shiny, it will be ... machined from a single aluminium billet.
If you can bend an iPhone by putting it inside your back pocket ... will you be able to bend an iCar by putting it immediately outside your back pocket?
"And what was wrong with using phenylephrine?" The structure's wrong. If in doubt, look at the pictures on the Wikipedia articles for methamphetamine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylephrine. While you're at it, look at the article "rolling meth lab" too.
"2) anybody with a brain would not start from pseudoephedrine..............." somebody resourceful might.
Was nobody actually -watching- Breaking Bad? Or reading what has been written about the chemistry of Breaking Bad? Only some of it was hokum. [I laughed like a drain when Jesse Pinkman said he'd used indium in the reductive amination.]
There is indeed a well known synthetic route to methamphetamine where the starting material is pseudoephedrine, and that route has one major advantage: you can obtain pseudoephedrine from cold remedies such as Sudafed which are available over the counter in pharmacies.
A rather better synthetic route to methamphetamine is the one starting with methylvinylketone and methylamine; except, those are such well-known amphetamine precursors that attempting to obtain them would likely draw you to the attention of specialist law enforcement.
Somebody I met a couple of times cut his teeth on an A500. I didn't really know him; large university crowd, he was in one clique at Aberystwyth (later Swansea) and I was in another at Bloomsbury. Amongst other things, he liked playing with the sound processor, and insisted that his "chickens in minor sevenths" was the coolest sound ever. Naturally, I never heard it.
Amongst other things. He was, or rapidly became, a highly adept C programmer, and also a more than competent M68k programmer. This had consequences when applied to CompSci labs' Sun workstations -- at the time running SunOS on M68020. Given a user account and a C compiler, he was generally reckoned to be about 60s away from root, but of course I never saw that demonstrated either.
I myself had an Atari 520ST-FM, so I had a disk operating system, in ROM. He had an A500, so for him disk i/o was rather more than just a trap call away. I sometimes wonder just how much influence that really had on our separate career paths.
Beard? Sandals? Real ale? Yes, all the properties later attributed to the stereotypical Linux kernel engineer. I remain unsure of the extent to which he conformed to the stereotype, or was responsible for it.
And indeed the Plumbbob tests are mentioned in George Dyson's book 'Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship'.
Can we please abandon the pretence that this an acronym, and return to the colourful analogy to fields of cows, dead cows, cows with their udders pointing skywards, teats up?
Harry Broadhurst. Look him up in Tom Neil's WWII memoir "Gun Button To Fire"
I'm not sure I understand your comment Andrew.
There was an election. In the preceding period, Grant Shapps was Conservative Party chairman. It's not unknown for campaigners for one party or another not to sing the virtues of their own party, but instead to denounce the policies and members of other parties. It's even known for these denunciations to be exaggerations or distortions of the truth. Or even complete fiction. [I'm sure I've covered whatever it was that whatsisface the LibDem campaigner was up to.]
Then we get to "Michael Green". The Graun also covered that story, pretty thoroughly, and it looks to me as if they didn't go telling porkie pies, because they didn't need to.
... which brings me back to my original comment "Why would you manufacture a smear about Grant Shapps ..." Why invent some allegation about which the general public doesn't give two hoots and never will, when there are some far more damaging truths readily at hand? If you were a campaigner for some party or other and wanted to convince the general public that the Conservatives were not be trusted because they were a deceitful bunch of shifty crooks, holding Michael Green^WGrant Shapps up as an example would have done just fine.
Have I missed something?
Doesn't add up.
Why would you manufacture a smear about Grant Shapps being a Wikipedophile, when his activities as "Michael Green" are a legitimate stick with which to beat him?
"This isn't the reckless driver you're looking for.... tell him he can go about his business ... move along!"
"However, unlike lighting a Bloody Big Firecracker (TM), the Sun doesn't run out"
Hmmm. That sounds like Project Orion to me. I'll admit it, I lust after that one.
Noting that the clip in the article shows USAF in-flight refuelling; the steerable-boom system they devised for strategic bombers rather the probe-and-drogue running-fuck-at-a-rolling-donut scheme used by the rest of NATO.
Noting also all the folks suggesting that in the future such-and-such a military system will not be able to exist because of enemies shooting at it. I think mostly in the future the problem will be mostly logistics, not tactics; the biggest single problem anyone will face will be the remoteness of the area of interest from the nearest available base, and having technology-demonstrator UAVs show they can complete in-flight refuelling evolutions is thought-provoking.
Since the GCHQ staff who destroyed the MacBook Air took their angle grinder back to the office, and then almost certainly destroyed it just to be on the safe side, did the V&A staff preparing the exhibit think to ask GCHQ if they'd kept the bits? Make a great exhibit ...
But... Dabbsy's article isn't about Jeremy Clarkson, it's about people who will jump into online discussion after having seized the wrong end of the stick with both hands.
Once upon a time: Godwin's Law, any internet discussion that runs long enough will lead to somebody mentioning the Nazis.
Nowadays: any internet discussion that runs long enough will lead to somebody mentioning Jeremy Clarkson's departure from Top Gear.
Is that then a new Godwin's law? Or, did I miss the email from Management that Jeremy Clarkson is a fugitive war criminal, and this is all just another instance of the original Godwin's Law at work?
Ummm... H&S ... so you never had to deal with the H&S zealot who stuck 'fire door -- keep closed' and 'fire exit' signs on every door of the building, even the toilets, even the toilet cubicles?
Those signs were lethal -- they kept falling off and hitting people.
I am reading Verity's piece, and thinking, the general tone and style is very familiar. Even some of the vocabulary. Hang on, didn't I write this piece myself elsewhere? Let me check my screed collection ... no I didn't.
Now, either Verity is reading my stuff and thinking "nice way of putting that, I shall steal it" or (infinitely more likely) I have been steadily absorbing Verity over the years, to the point that even I'm starting to notice.
Well, we can check that.
"I think, reading the article, that someone is aiming for a kick in the unit testes."
"no no no, hold it in, their satellite's coming round again, they're looking for methane! They'll see us!"
"OK. I'm not sure about this... can I let it slip now?"
"no, no, here comes another satellite. You'll have to wait another --"
-- PAAAAARRRRRRP! ---
"Sorry about that, couldn't help it. Blimey, someone open a window!"
[heavy choking coughing; sound of window opening]
[wheezy] "Dear God. What if it forms a plume? I bet they'll spot that from orbit"
Muggers will still steal your device, but will probably throw it away a short while after. Their aim in doing this is  to prevent you from using your device to make a timely report to the police that you have been robbed and  to prevent you from using your device to take a picture of the mugger to show to the police, should they ever turn up.
It is also true that muggers are not always possessed with current IT knowledge or a decent set of thinking skills, will not know about the kill switch, will not know which devices or operating system revisions feature it, will not know how to identify the device or operating system revision at which they are looking, and generally won't care either.
See also http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/28/google_gay_translation_fail/ .
I needed to expand my vocabulary a bit. I foolishly resorted to Google Translate.
"Fosse des Puces"? "Trench bullets". I acknowledged to myself that I was missing something, and thought nothing more of it.
Until somehow I decided "pit of fleas" was probably a better translation.
Huh? This is The Register, and we begin with "whether the person ahead of you ... washed their hands after their last visit to the bathroom", and later go on to mention brownouts, but without any pun-tastic attempt to link the two?
I would like to read some more discussion of the engine lubrication system.
Meteor as the unsupercharged AFV-application Merlin variant? OK. As I recall oil consumption in Merlins was measured in pints per hour, and they leaked about as much as they burned; you can spot a flyable Spitfire in a museum by the liberal oil-staining of the underside of the aircraft.
... so I started shuffling through my collection of machines and browsers until I found one that Google didn't dismiss as 'unsupported', then found the app-tracker thingy.
I deduced, from the surprisingly short list that showed up, use of Google search does not count. Use of the Gmail webapp counts. Use of Gmail via POP3s/IMAP4s/SMTPs does not count, even though you need the account id+pw to make it work. Hmmm.
I recall somebody managing to embed a security code key fob into a payment card. What happened to that? Admittedly it doesn't authenticate that you're you, only that the person attempting authentication has the card at hand; that would still be better than a constant password.
Where was I?
Obvious (to me at least) in the season opener that Missy was The Master, and that what appeared to be the afterlife wasn't. The first person to show up was the chief rubbish robot; robots don't have souls and either don't have an afterlife, or have a different afterlife to living things. [Mmm. We may yet get to discover in what sort of afterlife, if any, Time Lords believe.]
And the swearing thing with the psychic paper. That smacks to me of a hasty script rewrite, of a scene originally between Seb and The Doctor (Addison/Capaldi; Ollie/Malcolm Tucker), and that line was too good to lose.
To get collected by Missy ... well, humans from Robot Of Sherwood don't show up, nor from Flatline, but humans from Into The Dalek do, as does that copper in The Caretaker that we see get blown to carbonised bits by the Skovox Blitzer. Missy is collecting people an instant before they are to be killed, and killed in ways that either destroy or mangle a body in such a way that anybody finding the body, if there is one, will not bother looking at it too closely and then discover it's a replica. A replica which has probably arrived via the same transmat beam that Missy is using to kidnap people.
Danny Pink doesn't quite count. But 'PE' is connected to Clara, whom Missy is exploiting to get to The Doctor. I think we're going to find that Danny Pink is alive and well.
Why did the writers go for the cliché of having Danny kill a child, and not something more nuanced and subtle? I think, precisely because it was unsubtle -- "let's throw in this idea that carries the smallest possible requirements for exposition ***splat***, now, get on with the story". I was expecting Danny Pink to be doing the same job as Jack Harkness in Series 1; the writers then put somebody in position in the Tardis to be a soldier in the series finale, able to run around killing things in a way that The Doctor was not. We might be seeing that again now.
What's with the Matrix Data Slice then? Missy is doing The Matrix with the kidnapped, scanning their memories to inform a holographic environment so that she can manipulate them. The reason why the child that Danny shot doesn't speak could be that Danny never heard him speak, so there's no data from which to synthesise a voice for the hologram of the child.
Or, bearing in mind that Who can be excessively sentimental, it's perhaps more likely that the child isn't dead, and Danny Pink is going to be able to return him alive to the wider world, and free himself from his sense of guilt.
Sooooo why did Missy collect the chief rubbish robot then in Deep Breath? Not a candidate for Cyberconversion. What would a Rubbish Robot make of a Cyberman, or a Cyberman make of a Rubbish Robot?
Time to have done with it, and firewall out 17/8 except for special occasions
The rubbish robots, Robot of Sherwood, the Skovox Blitzer, and now a long-dead soldier animated by military technology.
Anybody would think that DW's writers have abandoned their Sixties counterparts' anxieties about invasion and nuclear annihilation, and instead exhibit some more contemporary anxieties regarding weaponised drones and lingering antipersonnel mines.
Yes it was a clunker. So what? DW's commitment to real science has always been a bit shaky, even from day 1.
Real science? Courtney says she has a book in her bag with describing something about gravity; Commander Whatsherface dismissed this with "Great, does it have a word search?"
More real science: Courtney kills a spider-thing with a kitchen cleaner spray, and the Doctor rattles through a brief lecture about nuclear biology involving the word 'eukaryotic', then rapidly assesses and reassesses who present is expected to understand this.
Speaking of day 1:
any minute now, the TARDIS crew is going to be one irascible old git (played by an actor best known for a previous role that involved shouting at people) with occasional flashes of humour, plus a teenage girl, plus two of her schoolteachers. From Coal Hill School. Sound familiar?
I'll bet Courtney Woods is going to start calling him Grandad next.
Petrol and diesel are much more practical fuels for road vehicles than hydrogen. And paraffin for aeroplanes, and so on.
And we can burn as much of these as we like with impunity provided (a) we achieve clean burn, no nasty soot or carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon fragments and (b) we do not contribute to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels; need to be carbon-neutral, or better.
Now, if we had a surfeit of cheap electricity as our author seems to be implying one day we could if we wanted, then we could make better use of pyrolytic conversion processes, or even start with CO2 from fractional liquefaction of air, and synthesize lots of squeaky-clean hydrocarbons. Which we could use for purposes other than fuel, too. If we were really ambitious, we could even start making vast slabs of artificial bitumen and stack them in heaps, just to try to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration, aiming towards our target of 280ppm.
The technology already exists to do all that; but, as yet, the cheap clean electricity does not.
[And no, wind turbines don't cut it.]
This article mentioned the VW Up!.
And it mentioned th Ford Ecoboost 1.0, as used in assorted small Fords I believe to include such as the current Fiesta and Ka.
It mentioned the 'manic Fiat Twin-Air', as per the FIAT 400.
It even mentioned the Porsche 911.
Each and every one of which I would rather own than the vehicle under discussion.
But then this does show my own biases. The Clio got mentioned, and I don't fancy one of those either. There are lots and lots of people driving about in the Clio 1.2 who don't incorporate my prejudices, and who I imagine would love to be driving a new Clio; but, being seventeen or a little older, it'll be up to their parents to deal with buying them a Twingo and insuring it. And this would neatly cannibalise existing Renault sales.
Unless it's cheaper to buy and insure than a prawn sandwich, well ...
... perhaps a legacy research objective, from the CRT era, to make a TV that could survive the Steve flinging the remote at it in disgust?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017