The barman knows too much!
But I guess he's in on the whole thing. He is cashing in the pint and curry money, after all!
132 posts • joined 23 Apr 2010
D'oh, thanks guys.
So, not much use if it can pack the punch of a bullet but can only release it all in one go like a bullet (as supposed releasing slowly like a candle). Gotchya.
And to the AnonIdiot, the...
Oh, forget it. If you don't understand after 3 posts, you're not going to understand now.
Would the problem then be ST electronics?
Nokia: "Here's our tech, use it only in our phones."
HTC: "We need a good mic, any ideas?"
ST: "Well, we have this one lying around..."
How was HTC to know that the component wasn't "freely" available?
Paris, because she sounds better on mute anyway.
Not really, as shares in a company generating income has value in two different ways: The value of the property of the underlying company (holdings, cash, IP etc) and the present value of future earnings (normally presented to shareholders in dividend payments). So for most shares there is a "bottom" price at which buying up the company and breaking it up into its most basic components still yields a value.
The problem with penny stock scams (and to a certain extent BTC) is that there's normally nothing underneath other than the *hope* of a successful find (new drug/oil deposit/tech breakthrough), hence the marketing language that tends to follow those scams: "Easy money", "Just a matter of time", "where the clever money is", "mainstream investors about to step in", "revolutionary", "game changing", etc. BTC goes even further in that there's not even THAT hope, it's just belief that the currency will continue to be viable. It's purely trading on faith: that people will accept it in trade for goods/services, that it will be convertible into "hard currency" (which it claims to threaten and destabilise...), that the security of the system and algorithms won't be cracked.
Which, given the history of electronic security (not that it doesn't exist, but that given enough financial motivation, SOMEONE will find a flaw), means it's only a matter of time before things go ka-blooie.
FT Alphaville are doing some serious financial analysis of the whole BitCoin phenomenon here:
(Registration but no payment)
Some interesting discussions on the practicality and viability of the whole concept. The comments in themselves are quite enlightening, and it might be interesting to get some more techincally minded people throwing their opinions into the mix.
The argument put forward by proponents of BitCoin is that it's a government-less currency of the people, for the people, by the people. But given that there's no intrinsic value to the currency (it's bits in the ether) and there's no backing to it (legal, militaristic or material), once there's a large enough crisis of faith (as that is all the currency is trading on), it will eventually return to its intrinsic value: 0.
Which means it's essentially a con and a Ponzi scheme.
The more vehement defenders of the concept come across as penny stock pushers, with classic quotes such as "Price drops are opportunities to buy", "If you think it's stupid, stay out of the market and let me make my easy money" and the classic "Volatility is by design and one of the benefits!"
It's a bubble, it's going to pop. The "anonimity" it provides is for paranoid conspiricists and illegal transactions. The fact is that the market can (and will) be easily manipulated. As there is no underlying assets, obscure supply and virtual demand, at the end of the day it's a deer market. Price goes up, more people hype and buy, self-perpetuating. Price gets to a certain level and there's a security "scare", confidence collapses and so goes the value. Manipulators buy at the start of the hype, sell into the bubble and "create" the scare to allow themselves back into the market at the bottom.
There'll be tears enough for all.
Heh. That's great, that could kick off a whole load of other claims.
Some "partners" might just get annoyed that they're getting properly bent over a barrel once they see what other licensees get.
More interestingly, others might get to see that their "most favoured client" status isn't being adhered to in a bunch of hidden deals! (How can you enforce "most favoured" status if the other contracts are und NDAs?)
Might give these patent troll giants second thoughts about fighting these cases out in court...
That just doesn't make sense. It's the argument of the "trickle down economy" where the more money the people at the top make, the more they'll spend.
Except that nearly never happens. The more money a corporation makes, the more money gets paid out to its executives and shareholders, and the minions and suppliers still get squeezed "to increase shareholder value". In fact, the more clout a company has, the harder they squeeze their dependants to increase their own profits.
Apple as an example: Sitting on a HUGE PILE of cash reserves. Why? "In case of change of market conditions or potential acquisition targets." So, a company making that much money, with the market share it has, could:
1. Pay more tax. (No Double Sandwich)
2. Pay better wages. (And I don't mean to management...)
3. Pay fairer prices to its suppliers. (So Foxconn workers don't commit suicide so often.)
What do we see instead? Right after Jobs dies, shareholders pressure for the cash to be paid out as dividend, doled out to the "haves", so that the "have-nots" get squeezed even more.
I have yet to see someone turn down a money-making opportunity because "It doesn't make enough profit." If there's money to be made, someone will do the job. If everyone plays by the same rules, the level playing field will keep everyone straight.
But it's not. And it won't.
"Yet the sun also emits IR light, so isn't CO2 reflecting that and so keeping us cooler than if there is no CO2?"
+1 for attempt at logic, -12 for science fail.
The CO2 does indeed reflect incoming some of the Sun's IR back out. However, as mentioned in a previous post, it does nothing to stop the shorter wavelength/higher frequency rays, such as light, from getting in. This light is in turn absorbed by objects (the darker the object, the more the absorbtion) and converted to heat. This heat is then re-emitted by said objects *in the IR range*, and therefore the Earth is trying to emit more IR than it receives from the Sun.
Which the CO2 reflects back in.
Hence the warming effect of increased CO2.
"It might (hypothetically - I've no evidence at all either way) "
Try Google. A lot of scientists have been doing a lot of work on this recently.
Or just not commenting on a subject you don't understand/follow. Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, etc...
Can we give it a break? It's not like we *don't* know Lewis' point of view. I think El Reg are trying to do the right thing and get a neutral PoV written and banned Lewis from writing any more AGW articles (the last 3 or 4 have been non-Lewis), and all half the commentators can complain about is that they don't have another opportunity to bash Lewis!
If you're commenting on here, you're a regular and know what to expect. Now F-off and find somewhere else to troll, your toy has been confiscated!
Unless the article has been re-written, "lag" here refers to the reaction time between increased CO2 (the cause) and the increase in temp (the effect). In the same way there's a lag between you reading the article, and comprehending what the author means.
El Reg quote:
"JPL isn’t attributing this event to climate change, but rather to a predictable cycle in Greenland’s weather. "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center."
"He said that, because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before, Nasa is not yet able to determine whether this is a natural but rare event, or if it has been sparked by man-made global warming.
Scientists said they believed that much of Greenland's ice was already freezing again.
Until now, the most extensive melting seen by satellites in the past three decades was about 55% of the area.
Ice last melted at Summit station in 1889, ice core records show.
The news comes just days after Nasa satellite imagery revealed that a massive iceberg, twice the size of Manhattan, had broken off a glacier in Greenland."
Which comes across as balanced, and which comes across as "OMGOMGWe'reallgoingtodie!!"?
Pretty sure I'm going to get flamed for this, so...
I did an internship many moons ago where I was tasked with reviewing use and integration of a minor piece of in-house, front-end software at an international bank..
After asking me to re-write and expand the report multiple times to include ALL the problems AND solutions, the bumbling idiot shifted it straight up the command chain to head of IT without proofing it.
I get called up, a personal letter of recommendation from the head, and offered a job when I graduate. I have a meeting with the bumbling idiot where I am told that "In these reports, one shouldn't be too blunt or it could cause problems."
He was fired within the quarter.
Some people need to protect from themselves.
Was thinking the same thing re. pisserlyser. And @Chris W, there are people out there who go to pubs and *don't drink alcohol*. Kids being told not to drink and drive when they aren't legally allowed to do either?
Any enterprising cab firm would tack their number onto the end of the "Pub(l?)ic Service Announcement".
Makes no difference.
If anything, deferral is better than killing it, as this way whenever it's mentioned, it will be recognised. Killing it allows them to slip bits and pieces into unrelated legislation, or come up with a new name and "new" angle to market it again.
Keep it as ACTA, just make sure it never takes off.
That way, they can tack on their "investigation" fee, charge 40% interest and bump it up 15% just for the hell of it.
Sell it on a couple of times too, to compound the charges.
Hey, seems like what they tried to do with my "fines". (Was an admin error by HomeChoice.) (Which in turn was SUCH an error on my part...)
Damn right. Without our tax h̶a̶v̶e̶n̶ efficient status, we'd just be another Belgium, and look how well they're doing.
Actually, no, we wouldn't be another Belgium, because half of them commute over and work here anyway! So we *and* Belgium would be worse off.
I suppose we do have the EIB, European Courts of Human Rights, and a few other institutions lying around. But kill off the tax efficiency, and the population would halve (okay, a quarter would leave...). Also, if you thought you'd seen a property bubble, OH BOY...
So please don't. It's nice and cushy here!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018