Re: No Soft Ditching
Has nobody else noticed that the fuel moved, causing a nose-down attitude, after the engines had stopped because ... they were out of fuel.
I smell a conspiracy. (of dunces)
19 posts • joined 15 Jan 2010
At a recent site, I'd produced (from my Linux desktop) an external HDD to send some data to Germany (yes, I know!) in a Windoze format. Around 50 (admittedly technical) users in the room. All ran OSX or Linux on the desktop. Eventually, I found a PM who ran windows, and could check that the drive was readable.
Linux on the desktop has been a viable option for > 10 years. It is just getting better with the availability of web interfaces to such things as outlook. I have for years stipulated at interview that I won't work with a windows desktop. I didn't get one job on that basis; otherwise, it's increasingly becoming a marker of competence, rather than a negative.
Well actually, I think the article's author was trying to suggest that we stop taking action to prevent GW. Read the whole article, and that's the impression I get.
I'm really confused as to his motivations. Assuming that he is wrong, and that little action is taken, and that as a consequence GW continues unabated, and indeed, accelerates, what then of the cost, and effect on our lifestyles?
Really, I just don't get this kind of position; it seems like complete lunacy to me - even if you're just taking a position in order to stir debate (or "trolling" as it's more often termed) - it seems quite astonishingly stupid. So, there's debate as to the exact extent of GW. To go from that to "don't let the nasty government tell me how to live" is just loony. But that fits with every other article I've read by Page. Ironically I'm sure I've read him argue that we should use nuclear energy to prevent GW. Blimey, he might actually be right on something.
The BBC do nothing (on TV, at least) which is of interest to me. Come to think of it, nor does anyone else, but that's beside the point - the BBC TV is truly _dire_. Don't get me started about Downton Abbey or Dr Who & as for Top Gear - it's all TV for the terminally dim. The BBC is run by bunch of hypocritical (the tax thing?) white middle class twits without a clue. If it wasn't for Radio4 & radio5, I'd say "lets dump the lot of the useless parasites".
Has anyone else noticed that whenever the BBC shows someone using a laptop (trendy reporter in coffee shop talking about problems with Google not paying their tax), it's an Apple. I'm writing this on a mac as it happens, but I realise that I'm in a minority. The BBC has an agenda.
I've never been an Apple hater. Microsnot, OTOH ...
But I'm fast becoming one.
As others have said, where do Apple innovate? Clever design and great marketing, sure, but innovate? I don't see much.
Apple are starting to make Microsoft look good (and, which is really, really annoying to a MS hater, Bill Gates is a great philanthropist, damn him). Also I'm starting to think that the Samsung products must be miles better than the Apple competition. Time to go and buy one.
For wanting clean energy. Billions is invested in oil, nuclear, and other "big ticket" energy systems with huge commercial backing. Spend a tenth of that (as some of the more forward-looking energy companies are starting to do because (they do exist for that reason) they see a profit), on clean energy, and I reckon that tidal, wind, geothermal, etc all suddenly start to look very cost -effective.
Does anyone not think that the whole after-tsunami thing would be going better if the Japanese weren't spending huge amounts of time and resources to deal with a dead (and deadly) nuclear power station. This is not a triumph of anything. It is (yet another) disaster.
The lazy labelling of the environmentally conscious as somehow being odd, unscientific, foolish - even the word green is pejorative in many uses - irritatesme beyond belief. Oh fuck it, lets concrete over the world. It always seems to me that those who ridicule "greens" are often those who don't want to give up the gas guzzler, and expect free, cheap petrol to go on forever. These are the ones who need to be ridiculed, not the environmentally aware.
So, we're not entitled to comment why? Because _you_ think that it's being sensationalist to worry about a nuclear accident which is now somewhere between 5 & 7 on the scale of nuclear accidents. The fact that as of writing, 15 people have voted up this piece of nonsense amazes me. I'm not sure how I'm being self-obsessed - although I will accept that I have an opinion on the matter, which is of amazement and concern. Japan is undergoing a national emergency compounded enormously by having to evacuate 100s of 1000s of people from a nuclear emergency situation. So, yes, you opinionated, sorry-arsed gobshite, I have an opinion, and yes, I'm bloody clever, even if the Japanese govt. or the plant operator are preventing me from knowing so (deleted) about it.
Pathetic! Coppers are like the rest of us. Theres good and bad both in each individually, and as a body. I am certainly no fan of the police in their "Law and Order" guise, but you are being extremely silly to imply that all police are stupid and unpleasant. Maybe you're young and prone to arrest? In my 47 years, I've met plenty of police who were in the job to help people. To suggest otherwise, whether you are a fan of the police or not is just plain stupid. Unfortunately for the police, one bad copper does taint our perception of them all. I've met a few obnoxious bas****d coppers in my time, but actually would say that on the whole, they do a good job, often under extreme provocation. Of course, the job does appeal to a certain type of bully, but equally well it appeals to the sincere, helpful and good people you sometimes meet. I've had a standup row with a copper on the street. He didn't abuse his power and arrest me just because we disagreed. Oh, I could go on, but this one-sided black and white view of the world is just so juvenile.
And calling people numpties when (s)he clearly has the IQ of a mental midget.
The force of your argument is that a PC is a microsoft machine. An apple is made by apple only - they choose the OS. A PC can be made by virtually anyone - why should MS be the only OS installed?
You have annoyed me, you completely stupid person.
The troll because you can't seriously be that stupid can you?
How many PCs are there around? Lots - I have quite a few myself. I'm too damn lazy to fight for my refunds, so instead I feel no qualms whatsoever if I feel the need to copy some MS crap software because some dipstick has sent me something in a proprietary format.
1% of a lot of machines is a lot of money in windows licenses.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019