Normally coffee's what you have, after a stiff drink...
5473 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
- Next →
Why not. As the Beatles famously sang: Happiness is a Warm Bum...
Re: Mach 5-6 Russkie missiles
The point about an aircraft carrier battle group is that it has an aircraft carrier. So it operates defence in depth.
This means that individual ships have point air defence capability, and then there are area AAW capable ships to defend the whole task force.
But firing missiles at short range requires being at short range. Well to get to short range of a carrier group requires driving along slowly through a zone where its aircraft can fly along quickly. If you've shot down all its planes, then a carrier group will be running away, terribly fast - as there's no longer any point in it being there. If you haven't shot down all its planes, then you're probably busy running away terribly fast, before they destroy you.
And firing off missiles at 600nm range requires a target. Which requires getting something with a radar on it significantly closer, in order to know where to aim your expensive, often not replaceable at sea, missiles. That platform then has to survive the air component of the carrier group in order to communicate. The ocean is big - and just a target of over-there guv isn't really enough for effective use of weapons.
You also neglect to remember that carrier groups often have "friends" underwater. If any navy regards their own submarine service completely as friends...
Re: Salty names
Those are the names I still remember from reading about the Norway campaign.
We've had a Warspite since, for one a submarine.
Re: I would have thought in modern warship design you start with the weapons....
Nope. You start with the role. In the case of frigates that's anti-submarine, with a side order of anti-ship and general patrol.
Then you pick the weapons you really want. Then you take off a few when it all looks too expensive. Then you get derive ship design.
So ASW means helicopters and a towed array sonar. Plus torpedoes, decent point defence AA and some anti-ship capability.
I think the idea of building some cheaper ships is that the RN do lots of things that don't require the specialities. So they traditionally always have a ship in the Carribbean that does anti-drugs patrols, goodwill visits, and is around to help with support after hurricanes. That doesn't need to be state of the art. There are often ships wandering round Africa, doing similar, when they're not doing anti-pirate duty off Somalia.
It's a balance of having too few assets, against having a bunch of lower quality ones that make you look strong on paper, but are no actual use if there's a real need for them. So for example if we ever had to regularly start patrolling the Persian Gulf again, you ideally should't send ships in there that don't have decent anti-missile defence, as Iran has lots of anti-ship missiles - and might let a few off. But if tensions are below actual war, then a few hulls to fly the flag and keep off Revolutionary Guards speedboats are all that's ever been required in the past. Plus minesweepers.
Re: Don't feel bad about stroking the egos of pols when deciding ship names...
The Royal Navy argument was that submarines became capital ships, at the point when they started costing more than almost any ship in the fleet - i.e. when they went nuclear. Particularly the missile boats of course, but even the attack subs were bloody expensive. Wasn't the original Los Angeles something like a billion dollars in the 80s? Which at the time would probably have got you 5-10 frigates.
Hence the RN started using battleship names on the subs. The the latest "A" class seem to have gone for traditional sub names again. There's no points for consistency apparently...
Re: In the event of Scottish independence
On negotiations after Scottish independence, should it happen, Scotland are going to be taking on a lot of national debt, with no credit history, as it were. I can't see this being a huge problem - as they basically share the UK one, but the lower it is, the lower their debt repayments. I guess a deal is going to be that the rUK takes the big shiny defence assets in exchange for more than its share of the debt. Much better to launch Scotland with a debt to GDP ratio of 60% of GDP than about 85%.
Whereas the Sots might aim to be one of those smaller countries that pulls more than it's share of weight doing UN peacekeeping, and so keep their chunk of the army. It seems to me they'd be better off not taking anything but smaller patrol ships from the Navy and only helicopters from the RAF - and if they want combat planes buying something cheaper like F18s, or (le horreur) buy something French.
Re: Battle of the Falklands is not that little known
Well we did lose 2 cruisers first, at Coronel.
Unfortunately Jackie Fisher's idea of the battlecruiser was that it was to wander round the iimperial sea-lanes, and sweep them of all enemy vessels. Being armed like a battleship but faster than a cruiser.
Sadly people then saw all these huge, expensive and very very shiny ships and said, "I'm having that for my grand fleet".
It probably took a crowbar to prise the ones sent down to the Falklands out of the hands of Beatty. Although to be fair the Navy were pretty busy getting organised at the beginning of the war, and those battlecruisers were dead useful for covering the army being moved to France.
Re: Type numbers?
Seems silly to call them frigates, given they're over 6,000 tonnes. Which is quite a bit bigger than her WWI light cruiser predecessor.
The article mentioned that she was involved in the Battle of the Falklands, but missed that she was also at the cock-up that was the Battle of Coronel. For which the Falklands was pay-back, after the Admiralty actually sent out a force capable of dealing with Von Spee's squadron.
Finishing as totally effed up...
You're calling them white hat hackers. But that's yet to be determined. They've syphoned off everyone's "money" into a big old account, and say they're going to return it in a few days. Perhaps we should call them white hats in a few days, after that has actually happened.
I'm not out to get the Beeb, but they have been taking the piss on pay in the last few years. As do many organisations, but then when you get public funding you get public scrutiny.
I doubt they seriously over-pay their talent though, given they don't control the market. It was more executive pay, that had been zooming up alarmingly. So I suspect this came out of the fall-out from how much they've been taking the piss on executive pay in the past.
Re: More high earning radio stars than tv.
There are fewer long-running TV shows than Radio. Chris Evans does a breakfast show for 40-something weeks a year. Which also has his name on it, and he probably does a lot of the creative work, as much as there is for a breakfast show.
Whereas a lot of UK TV drama things work in 6 episode series. The Beeb only do one soap, and they've got longer running drama things like Casualty. But then lots of their TV shows are out-sourced to production companies, from memory it's around 50% - and only the stuff in prime time is probably going to make the big money.
Wane Carr would do it for a tenth the money.
Let's have a chinny-wag!
Re: Fsck me ...
He's not my cup of tea, but he has (or at least used to have) his finger on the
jugularpulse of da Yoof.
This really impresses TV execs, who generally don't. So gets rewarded. To be fair, TFI Fridays was must-watch telly back in the day amongst certain people. I believe his radio show gets good ratings, and breakfast shows get the most cash because the hours are unsociable and they're seen as setting the mood for the station. Plus that and "drivetime" is when people listen.
I don't know whether he's over-paid or not. But his salary is a lot more justifiable than Gary Lineker, who doesn't do anything that some other presenter couldn't do. And was actually totally shit at his job when the Beeb hired him, and took years to get good at it.
Evans actually has creative input into his shows. And has a record of successfully producing shows that get ratings. Lineker could easily be replaced by Inverdale or Barker, and nobody would notice. Bring back Des Lynam I say!
Re: OK Not to defend the BBC and all...
As you say these figures are incomplete. Some stars are paid by production companies, and those figures get missed off, not added to the list.
For example I can't believe Peter Capaldi gets half the money for Doctor Who that the guy who plays the nurse in Casualty gets. Even though he's been in it since the beginning. But I'd imagine the Capaldi will be getting part paid by BBC Worldwide, or will get a percentage of global rights, or merchandising or something to top him up.
But the Beeb can't publish salary figures from outside production companies. As the BBC don't know those figures. They know what they pay for the programs. What the companies do with that cash is up to them.
Obviously the Beeb could make it part of their contracts that they have to be told, and publish it. Which may be what happens in future. But there wouldn't have been time to get all those contracts changed for the production of these figures - and the Beeb didn't want to publish these anyway, so probably wouldn't have pushed for that.
No-one and I mean NO-ONE, not even GOD is worth 2 million a year!
To give a specific example, I think David Beckham was.
When he moved from Manchester United to Real Madrid, something like £20-£30m of merchandising income went with him. It toppled Man U from being the highest earning club in the world that year, and passed the crown to Real.
So even without his undoubted talents on the field, he was worth something like £5-£10m a year just as a way of selling shirts.
Similarly, someone like Clarkson made the BBC an awful lot of money via Top Gear, before it all went titsup. As well as being entertaining to 7m Brits, and tens of millions more worldwide. And to prove Clarkson did have something to do with it, when they brought in Chris Evans, he couldn't make it work. I don't know how well the Matt LeBlanc led version has recovered.
To be fair to Evans his TFI Friday was a genuine cultural phenomenon back in the 90s. I hated it, but it was mandatory viewing amongst quite a bit chunk teens/twentysomethings. That is actually very hard to achieve, and so people who can manage it get very well paid by execs who can't, but are desperate for more of it.
So talent that is thought to genuinely attract ratings, and is considered hard (see risky) to replace, will get paid lots more. Whereas people who are doing a good job in a field where lots of others are also good will get less - as you can replace them. There are plenty of good political journalists, but not many people who can successfully host a Saturday Night entertainment show. And that's one of the holy grails of TV channel controllers. So people like Norton, or Ant & Dec get big money.
Re: What's interesting
As someone said, this doesn't include people paid by production companies. Or merchandising deals and the like. So it's only a partial list. I can imagine a few more stars wanting to use their own production companies because of it - as clearly the Beeb then won't be publishing their salaries.
Although I guess the real PR trick is to get a really low base salary, and have the rest paid as a percentage of merchandising rights, or a separate contract with your own production company.
The Doctor is criminally underpaid. The guy who plays Charlie from Casualty (who's been in it since the beginning) gets about twice as much as Peter Capaldi. Shocking.
Though to be fair, these figures don't include separate licensing type deals, so it's possible Capaldi gets lots of cash in merchandising rights. Which I doubt there's much of for Casualty, it not being a massive global brand.
Re: What is the point
Are they the organisation in charge of drug quality in cycling?
I think company names could work. Actually could work for ICANN too. Amazon spend a lot of money on advertsing, as do people like Google, Apple, Coke, Microsoft etc. If they push their new domain name in all their ads, then people are going to eventually learn it. Then they might become aware that there are more internet addresses than just .com.
After all, I've seen a lot of money spent on marketing the new .word domains. But none of it at the public, it's all from domain hosting companies, trying to get us to register a bucketload of really expensive and crap names. No bugger has bothered to try to educate the public, so there's no demand, so business has mostly ignored the who charade. I guess ICANN made their bonuses, so it's not a total loss...
Then again as shop.amazon is a long to type as amazon.com, why bother?
It was the guy who'd bought the UK distribution rights. He was apparently going for a "walk" in the country, and gently backed out of someone else's way so they could pass him on the path - and accidentally backed over a cliff.
Re: And people trust goo ...
Given the piss-poor security they've used, I'd imagine that it will only take a few minutes to find a different security flaw.
Re: This vuln would have added a whole new
Surely it should be to Yakkety Sax?
Re: I mustnt be a hipster...
Irony, that's like gold-ey or bronze-y isn't it?
Actually I think irony might be the phone call I had literally halfway through typing the word irony above. It was from a dodgy call centre, on a dodgy skype line, probably from India, claiming to be the UK Nuisance Calls Department, offering to help me block all the nuisance calls I've recently been having. Though apparently not the current one...
Re: It is a salvage mission in international waters, China should take over the search
The Air France voice and data recorders were still readable. Those things are tough. And the physical positions of valves, guages and switches have often been vital in telling what happened. You can't assume there'll be no data. It's amazing how many crash results are worked out from partial data.
There's obviously a financial limit on what to spend. But it's worth spending a bit of time looking at drift patterns and seeing how they differ from our expectations, so we can refine our models an go back to a targetted search later.
Re: It is a salvage mission in international waters, China should take over the search
No problem is suspected with the engines or airframe - given how long the plane flew. But although one theory is pilot action, electrical problems are also very likely. Fire or decompression, leading to oxygen-starved pilots not acting rationally has happened before.
But even if it is a pilot, there may be things to be learned abou that which are useful.
The point is, this isn't wasted money. The reason that air travel is safer than almost any other form of transport is that we put serious money into finding out what went wrong in the past, so we can solve it in future. Even some suicidal/homicidal pilot problems may have useful solutions/mitigations, if we know enough.
It took 5 years, and serious effort to find the Air France crash in the South Atlantic. And that yielded really useful information about how modern fly-by-wire systems create some problems. So we now have some airlines deliberately encouraging their pilots to go off autopilot at high altitude cruise, just to get practise and 'feel' for the aircraft when it's in that always close to stall condition you get up high. Plus there's better training for what happens when fly-by-wire defaults to manual mode. And hopefully more thinking about how electronic cockpits can communicate with pilots when some of the data they're showing may be unreliable - giving the pilots a better chance to save an aircraft where the computers have given up in confusion and dropped everything back into the pilot's lap.
As a bonus here we get to learn more about ocean currents and environment - which all feeds back nicely into climate change research, which seems to be quite sketchy on ocean data.
Re: Very interesting tech
I don't want to walk around like the guy from Doom, if it means a giant pig demon sneaking up behind me and eating my legs...
Re: "to the Charlie Stross envisioned world from Halting State and Rule 34"
The difference with Amazon is interesting. While Google produced Glass, and never seemed to quite know what to do with it, Amazon are amazingly focused with Echo.
I got one for Christmas, and it's unplugged and unloved. I'll probably find someone to give it to who'll find it useful.
Because it only seems to have two use cases. Using Amazon music (which I'm not signed up to) and operating smart lighbulbs and the like (which I don't have).
I suppose there's always shopping, but you can only say "buy me a dolls house", and leave Amazon to pick which one you get, if you're very brave or very rich. I guess if you use their grocery shopping, you're just adding to an existing list, so it's good.
Other than that, I get an email every week saying all the new things it can do, which mostly amount to not a lot.
So for example you can use it to wake you up. "Echo wake me up at 7am". But you can't add to that command. So you can't say, "wake me up with the radio, or a particular song or playlist - which is pretty bloody useless in my book.
Or you can say "Echo give me the news" and it reads you the crappiest list of about 3 almost totally random headlines - maybe that's improved in the last 6 months but I doubt it.
But if I want a recipe for say ginger biscuits, it's both still quicker and more reliable to pick up my phone/tablet and search than it is to use the Echo. Or just go to one of my cook books. And it's not much slower to launch my music from my phone/tablet - although if I'm cooking I have to wait until I have a clean enough free hand, but really that's not enough of a problem to want to spend money to solve.
What's really tragic is when the spokesdroid says, when we graduated we learned that there were all sorts of business applications.
You didn't "graduate" you useless arse! You had to pull the program because it was failing miserably!
Now if you'd just said that while testing and refining the product internally we found that it had all sorts of business uses, that would be all fine and dandy. You wouldn't then be taking the people you're talking to for ignorant muppets, and everybody could continue happy with their lives. It's got the same meaning, it also avoids mentioning the whole "oops failure" thing but without insulting anyone's intelligence.
This is the problem with some of these tech companies. They take themselves way too seriously, have almost no discernible sense of humour and have this almost messianic belief in their own awesomeness that just begs for somone to punch them in the face. The high-and-mighty-ness doesn't really sit well with the casual ignoring of various countries' laws or the massive tax avoidance either... Google and Apple have done some really good stuff, but they're also both insufferably annoying!
There are so many applications for Glass, but I think Google's problem is trying to be genuises and do everything at once, while also trying to let the huge numbers of developers out there hack away to their hearts' content coming up with even more good stuff. Something more limited and focused should be the goal at first, with the option to expand in future. That means you can start with cheaper, and more limited, hardware at first, then improve as production cost fall.
A Google Glass travel assistant for example would be great. Something that combines sat-nav, public transport information and the ability to control your music while you do it, then let you read a book once you're on the train/bus/plane. Presumably with your phone doing the heavy-lifting. I'd pay a few hundred quid for that - and we know people do as they already spend that kind of cash on sat-navs.
Re: In a moment of tautological irrefutability
I've come to the conclusion that all school children should be forced to play EVE Online. Firstly, it might *ahem* improve the quality of "witty" repartee on some of the forums - but more importantly all the kids would get a nice lesson in why cryptocurrency is going to go horribly wrong. If not for them, then for someone else. And of course it might be them next time.
You can learn a lot about humanity on EVE. Not all of it good. For example, you might learn how to set up your own cryptocurrency, and be the one doing the stealing...
Re: ...prevelent and popular
I seem to recall those 3" discs were nice and reliable. Though I admit he did probably find a few skiploads of them somewhere, unwanted by anyone else. I had an Amstrad PCW 8512 - which was great for my first go at word processing. Ah the joyous noise of a dot matrix printer... I could even play Graham Gooch's Test Match Cricket on it.
It's shorter to fit on the headline than "thrown together hastily on the way to the pub"...
Re: Why did he not simply unplug the ATM?
And a week later he'd have arrived, and submitted a report saying: "machine failed due to dead guy in works"...
Re: Oh the hell with it - I'll post it and hope that Vulture Central does not send a hit squad.
Sorry, but I can't resist posting:
There was a young man from Torbay,
Who set sail for China one day.
He was lashed to the tiller
By a sex-crazed gorilla.
And the Far East's a very long way...
As for Mr Dabbs article, I only have two words to say: Oooooooh Matron!
That leads me to wonder why they're worried their bank account might be frozen?
Bitcoin's value once collapsed from $1,500 to $100 in two days. That's quite a high risk. Plus it's so volatile that the price can fluctuate by a few dollars each time a coin is sold for cash - which is a similar (or higher) cost than you pay for changing currencies. And $100 in a day shifts happen quite often.
Obviously if you're getting paid in Bitcoin, then it makes sense to use them for what you want. But that huge volatility is very expensive compared to the stability of almost any currency you care to name.
Re: Bitcoin is bound to collapse in value prior to this date
Bitcoin isn't worth £1,700 per coin. Sure you might get that when you sell your first one. But what happens when you sell the 10th? Or the 100th?
That's why it crashes so often, because it only takes a few people selling a few coins at the same time to trash the value.
It's certainly an interesting experiment though.
Re: "virtually zero" How are Morgan Stanley counting?
Markets are often helped by speculators. Some do need them. This is because you need liquidity in order to make a market. This for example is what killed the banks in the 2008 crash. They had assets that were worth lots of money, those mortgage backed securities, but because nobody had any faith in how they'd been packaged nobody would buy them at any price. The banks had to apply market value to them (which was basically zero), and suddenly the banks were looking insolvent. Now obviously this is an example of how you need proper regulation, but it's also an example of why markets need liquidity to work.
Take for example the futures market. I am Farmer Giles. My wheat will be harvested in 3 months. Do I want to risk there being a bumper crop from everyone, so I don't get a good enough price and go bust? Or do I want to hang on for the reward of a bad harvest, where my wheat is suddenly worth loads and I can afford extra beer and hookers? Or do farmers have groupies? Tractor tarts perhaps?
Anyway that's what the futures market is for. I can sell my wheat now - and get a predictable return which means I don't risk going bankrupt in 3 months. Meanwhile a bread company might want to secure guaranteed prices for the next few months, so they can do a deal to sell to a supermarket on a fixed price contract - thus losing the ability to react to changing wheat prices.
But often the two sides of futures transactions don't balance. So everyone benefits from some speculators coming along. They're risking their (or their clients') money to make a profit. Booo! But actually this is good. Both the baker and the farmer don't care about making huge profits, what they want is steady, predictable ones. So they're willing to give up some potential profit for certainty. But the speculator needs risk in order to grow the investment. So in this case, everyone can be a winner.
This is why markets work. Sure they sometimes fail, but the point here is that everyone is getting some of what they want.
This is (or at least was) a fundamental problem with Bitcoin. I looked a couple of years back, and the Bitcoin daily turnover was laughably small. It was so illiquid, that someone selling a bitcoin ($400-odd at the time) could change the global price by a couple of dollars! That's high volatility in an investment asset. But in something claiming to be an alternative currency, it's laughably pathetic.
Surely that would mean pressing the button 42 times?
Re: I had not heard of Tizen before
You can tell it's Tizen when your eyes are shut!
Re: Think that one was bad?
Will the Christmas campaign involve Santa's sack in any way?
Re: 2 Wrongs make a right here I think
Its offensive to me that I must treat people who claim to believe in a sky fairy with respect and not ridicule.
Then you should take a long, hard (fnarr fnarr) look at yourself.
Treating people with respect should be your default position.
You don't have to agree with their views in order to do that. You're even welcome to ridicule those views, though don't be surprised if this doesn't make them happy, or causes them to dislike you.
Hence that quote that you should never discuss religion or politics in polite company.
Maintaining respect for people you disagree with is simply basic politeness. And is something you'd do well to learn. It might increase people's respect for you.
Sorry, but your post instantly made me think:
"Holy dildo Batman!"
Is settings in Win 10 so bad? It seems perfectly fine to operate with either mouse or touchscreen - so what's the problem?
The thing that I see as bad is that there's a separate settings and control panel at all. This stuff should all be in one place. But I don't particularly care which it is. And they may as well make it tablet friendly as not.
However, the big deal for Surface has been the stylus/pen. Unlike earlier attempts at PC-stylus interaction, the stylus and your finger are recognised as two separate types of input device
My old Vista tablet PC did this. It had the Wacom stylus and a resistive touchscreen. It had really good palm recognition, so you could rest your hand on the screen with the tablet, but still point at stuff with the other hand - and it had gesture controls you could still operate with the other hand. Though the gesture controls were unreliable, and I think I eventually got pissed off and switeched them off.
I really liked it, but not so much that I didn't replace it with an iPad the month they came out. But I've missed having a stylus on my iPad most days since. Now the iPad 3 finally needs to be replaced I'm thinking through what to get. iPad Pro, Android tablet (cheapy or maybe Samsung still do the Note line) or Surface.
MS gave up on the universal Metro interface when Windows 8 failed. Win 10 now happily lets desktop users ignore Metro and people with tabletty things can have Metro on the tablet and desktop when the keyboard's attached - or even just desktop. So I don't really see what you're complaining about?
The weird thing in my opinion is how Metro everwhere failed to win at Microsoft even in the glory days of Sinofsky - when he was forcing Windows 8 down everyone's throats. He didn't manage to get enough resources to the phone division to get that to match with the desktop - which was surely the whole bloody point of the exercise. Meanwhile the Office team ignored him completely, and carried on operating as it touch didn't exist, which seems to be their attitude still.
Re: Shit we don't know
I don't remember all the details now, but even Corbyn's team admitted that the train crew found them seats. But they all weren't able to sit together - which they wouldn't be on a train with no reserved seats either, unless it was totally empty.
Given he was going up for a planned meeting, it looks pretty incompetent that they didn't all have seats booked beforehand - given that saves money. Unless not all sitting together wasn't really the issue. For example if they happened to be making a little film about train crowding...
This was a cynical little stunt, where Corbyn got caught. A minor matter of course, but if you're trying to portray yourself as the honest outsider practicing a "a new kind of politics" - it does affect your image.
Yes our train network needs more capacity. Short of rebuildling all the bridges to have double-decker trains, or knocking down thousands of buildings to build extra tracks - that basically means building more trainlines (HS2?). Which isn't Virgin's job, they just run trains on existing track.
People have a right to have something to hide. There's no law against having affairs for example, and nor should there be. Hence we try to make a compromise to protect people's privacy with the DPA while allowing useful things like CCTV.
Corbyn's crew would probably have got away with this if it had been any other company, but Virgin have a much more free-wheeling marketing department than most. If they'd just issued a statement saying there were seats, it wouldn't have been a story. But because they instantly put out the CCTV, the stunt backfired.
I still remember when Pepsi changed their cans from white to blue, the Virgin Cola marketing crew put out a bunch of big ads the next day saying they had a new type of can out now, where if the drink was past its sell-by-date the can would turn blue. Childish admittedly. But quick.
- Next →