Re: Is he meant to just bury the body again?
Only if he's paid extra for it. Wasn't in the original job spec, see?
6735 posts • joined 11 Sep 2009
None of the many dozens of machines I've had to deal with for work colleagues have had secret pr0n stashes on them... But one lady... well, I didn't know that photographing & videoing your childbirth was actually a thing.
At a college I worked in, one guy repeatedly asked for the old LC475 Mac lab to be opened up for open access because he liked "peace and quiet", despite it not having a resident technical support like the newer PPC labs. Getting suspicious, we just Appleshared into the cache folder for the browser and sorted by time, most recent at the top. I felt sorry for him truly I did. I mean, if you're going to be dragged before the Dean for violation of the Internet use policy, at least let it be for something decently disgusting instead of 200+ drawings of Disney characters in flagrante delicto.
In my mind "less" and "fewer" are used when there is no indication of the exact number. In other words things like "10 items or fewer", "less than 10grams of cocaine" etc.
In this instance, the phrase "[...] himself [...] with no less than 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member" produces the received meaning of "the chap had 13 rings on his cock, no less" which equals "the chap had 13 rings on his cock, amazingly". Rephrasing the original, it comes out as "presenting himself at a local hospital with an amazing 13 engorgement aids encircling his swollen member"
It's not that they didn't know how many he had jammed on there, of course they did, it's just that "no less" was being used like an adjective.
"The person who showed up to perform the removal operation was no less than the head surgical consultant". Being a countable item, shouldn't that be "... operation was no fewer than the head surgical consultant"? Of course not.
Yeah, Ford came and took my V4 in the middle of the night and stuck a V5 on the driveway, but I can't and don't want to drive the f***ing thing because they've moved the controls behind the side-window de-misting vent, done away with the gear stick, painted the interior in vivid hues (as in *heeeewwwwssss*) of 8-bit vomit, don't trust me to even change the tyres myself anymore, upload all the GPS tracks, sat-nav data and dash-cam footage to their servers and only let me stream music to the ICE.
Oddly that describes the sensation I had yesterday trying to set up an enterprise network (when the automatic parameter setting failed - all the CHAPv2 / PEAP stuff) then install Matlab, ImageJ, Office and EndNote on a new laptop running Windows 8.1
Fukushima is pretty bad as well. And Three-Mile Island, and many others. But these are not the single catastrophic event I'm talking about which is the hypothetical worst case scenario. The light of experience in the 60 years of atomic energy has shown that damage can be mitigated, effects lessened and chance reduced, but that does not change the fact that the more you build, the more chance there is of the nightmare scenario.
I didn't say that the fossil reserves were running out in that post, though they are. I said that fossil plants were going off line and there isn't the economic or political certainty to say "we build so many of these, and so many of this other and we're sorted".
I think you're all missing the point in the article which is that the DARPA people are developing mass cheap efficient storage to address exactly the problem of renewables not having consistently the same output 24/7/365. The other alternative is solar collector / reflector in space, out of Earth shadow. You spread your supply across many bases. If these storage devices make renewables a realistic source then that's a good thing. One day, one day very soon, we will run out of fossil fuels. The more nuclear you build, the more likelihood that one of them will go wrong in a bad way, even a 1 in a billion chance is unacceptable if that one instance has global consequences for centuries to come.
Good point, but it's a question of the energy crunch. Ageing fossil and nuclear plants are going off-line and there's too much uncertainty about what to replace them with. It's really, really good that "free to refill" sources like wind, tide and solar are out there, thanks to our friendly neighbourhood fission/fusion reactor, and we've got the capture part worked out, but the storage side of things... not so good. Pumped hydro-electric is a fairly cool way of doing it, but that comes with it's own environmental impact (it takes a LOT of space, usually a few dozen miles of valley). So the debate continues and long term investment is less attractive. We are at a turning point - as the Victorians oversaw the coming of the industrial revolution, so we stand at the crossroads of the energy revolution. I won't be around in 100 years to see the result!
It seems that having a premises within the M25 carries major kudos. I'm not a procurement manager, but it seems like "being within the M25" means bugger all when choosing a supplier - if I need them to get to me in London within 2 hours or 1 hour or 15 minutes, I'd write that into the contract and let them sort that bit out under threat of penalty.
Seems to me anyway.
They quote their address as:-
St Albans Office
7 Handley Page Way
Old Parkbury Lane
Don't get into a nit-picking contest over this, please. It got very nasty a few weeks ago in the local newspaper over some address or other being in Watford or Three Rivers. (It was Watford, because that was their postal town - the fact that a Three Rivers lorry empties their bins had nothing to do with anything!)
"...it will be fun to see how many of those claiming to never watch the BBC..."
True. Very true!
Noticed the usual culprits in the press are headlining articles today with, for example, "ITV catch-up remains free, yet the BBC will charge for iPlayer", which isn't the case at all. BUT, given that the license fee is for all TVs receiving live broadcast, regardless of the source, shouldn't any change to legislation regarding TV licensing relate to all on-demand video sources, which would put the cat amongst the pigeons for sure? Or, if it's an unlock of BBC iPlayer only (and expect to see the copyright smack-downs increase), is that a seismic shift towards pay for content / a general subscription model? A move towards a general subscription model would see perhaps a CAM for BBC channels? That's a retrograde step, IMHO. A move towards funding from general taxation would see the BBC shift towards being a government-blown trumpet. Then, they perform other functions besides just making TV shows - they've got a whole network of overseas news gathering and foreign language monitoring (though I understand that's funded mostly by government grant rather than by the license fee).
And therein lies the way to ruination. Because so, so many people claim to never watch the BBC and would gladly see it move to a subscription-only model. I'm curious as to the technical details, though. Will they ship a digital key with the license now?
Of course, Student Loans are repayable if you go to work abroad, whereas Income Tax is not (given certain provisions). We impose income tax on foreigners coming to work in the UK, would they have to pay the graduate component? Balance that against how many of our graduates go to work overseas, as we don't claim income tax on foreign earnings in most circumstances.
The US, however, runs things a little differently. As a US citizen working abroad, you are required to fill in tax returns still, and pay income tax to the US government on part of their foreign earnings, with deductions etc etc etc.
If the UK adopted a "citizen tax", we could still collect taxes on foreign earnings in a similar way in order to recoup the cost of the privileges of personal development obtained at UK education institutions above the basic level of education.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019