I am cancelling my subscription forthwith
The Registerbot forgot to insert "fanbois" at every opportunity.
Shurely some mistake.
23 posts • joined 11 Feb 2011
... provided he’s show promise, otherwise out out out.
That’s not inventive, that’s just stupid. Wrapping it up in mollycoddling “curiosity” is bullshit. You can be curious without fucking things up.
If he didn't realise that the box that was created to do repetitive tasks quickly then took the very repetitive task and did it very quickly, then he’s missing the point. That’s not a BOFH, that’s a user with little knowledge making poor decisions.
‘Ullo little old lady
I was a long time Chortlon and Jamie fan. I was a little older than target, but still at school. Always hoped that ITV (remember when we only had 3/4/5 channels?) were showing either of them on days when I was “ill”.
Thought Fenella the Witch was brilliant. REGIONAL ACCENTS!!
A great theme tune.
Didn't say the canals weren't Big Engineering (having done a bit of Industrial Archaelogy I can bore you to tears on the subject) and yes they had a pretty big impact but they were not next gen: they were an extension of already apparent engineering principles. Of course, cast-iron meant that stronger and larger bridges could be built but most aqueducts were still granite/wood and puddle clay affairs with the appliance of a bit more thought and more construction.
By no means the same effect as the invention of the steam locomotive/iron rail/consequent speed-between-distant-towns combo.
As far as canals go, there's a natural progression from boats on rivers, ditch-digging and bridge-building. First known navigable canal was around 510BC - not new.
Aqueducts started around the same time (although water-carrying ones admittedly) - not new and a couple of the ones into Rome are still being used.
Navigable ones in the late 17th - not new
Locks - the Chinese some time - can't be buggered to look it up. - not new.
We joined all the dots and improved locks, summit canals, aqueducts in the 18th.
Yes, a gap of a few centuries that perhaps makes it look like a big leap but there was no impetus for us to do it until the industrial revolution brought the need: many of the resources were inland. Up until then there was no reason for county or national scale projects. Not enough money and not enough people either!
But still, from a technological point of view, canals really are only boats floating down a man-made river. (Sorry for the disjointed sentences, I'm only half concentrating on this).
I'd argue not. The canals were not, from our point of view, next gen. They didn't need or result in a step change in any other technologies (apart from lock building). Canals were just watery roads. Yes more payload, but still at horsey speed.
I prefer to think of your Dad as the presenter of "Local Heroes"
"Hullo! This week on Local Heroes, we're in Penge!" or something like that. An excellent programme.
(Aaaagh! My eyes. Make the glowing bike go away.)
Much better than the contemporary version of "Tomorrow's World" - that was already being neglected in the same way of everything else sciencey, fiction or non-fiction, on the BBC viz Dr Who, QED, Horizon.
An aircraft is a *very* mobile mobile-communications-device, you can sit inside it too.
I should patent a mobile communications device that you can sit inside (possibly with more than one seat - conference calls, you know?), flies gaining lift by using wings or a spinning, bladed wing-system and forward thrust from the use of a newtonian reaction motor… with a headset that uses one 3.5mm jack plug
Back in the days of the still not quite standard £2000 286, I was in on a secret squirrel manufacturer-only Notes test*. Instantly hated it with a passion.
*That's what they told us, anyway. Ooh, may have been '92
> MS chooses not to include Outlook in consumer bundles of MS Office, if it did so then the pressure to ditch Notes would become unbearable.
Er, because of all those home users buying Notes?
Oh goody. Going to Seoul again in June.
Modern electrickery is quite handy on the way in to Incheon.
Take a look at the approach charts http://www.opennav.com/pdf/RKSI/RKSI_INSTR_APP_CHART.pdf
Notice the big "Do not fly" line?
It's also quite prone to fog, the airport's on an island and there aren't many major landmarks for navigating until you're on final. I don't know but they're probably using GPS augmented ILS (anyone?) so any jamming's not going to be too helpful.
...mention of Pond, Song, Leela and no-one mentions Peri? Now, maybe Peri in Amy's policewoman outfit? Oh crikey.
I'm by no means a Whovian and, being of the late Pertwee/Baker vintage, I quite like the Smith instar BUT the nouveau humans-are-great and awfully clumsy look-gay-people! schtick is what annoys me (Some of my best friends are gay/black/French/real).
While it's laudable that they're trying to influence people into being more accepting, it's the crappy way that it's shoe-horned into the plot with feeble excuses like there's no reason why he should be of any particular persuasion: indeed not, but do you have to do it in such inept way? It's like deciding that they're going to make vegetarianism more acceptable and then in every fourth episode show someone slaughtering a cow and the Doctor says NO I QUITE FANCY A LETTUCE , ACTUALLY (Lettuce's are cool). Okay, this is pretty much a whinge against the stylings of the now absent RTD but the humans are the bestest ooh they're marvellous stench still hangs around.
The lack of a scientific perspective is sad but that's symptomatic of most TV output nowadays. It's all bums-on-seats dahling. If it's too difficult they won't understand it. At least that's the view of the Execs and the directors and writers that have grown up with that culture.
Don't get me started on the Torchwood labia of the world thing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019