... following "Tea-boy Photo Gate" that there are certain people at the BBC who read El Reg.
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
You what? Andrew Orlowski is now not only moderating posts in response to his articles (can you say "conflict of interest"?!) he is also *EDITING OUT* bits that he doesn't like.
It seems that it is ok for HIM to call people names, but when the boot is on the other foot he can't take it.
Talk about an abuse of power!
[ad hominem snipped - Andrew]
So let me try again, Andrew: Please will you answer the following regarding the creation of synthetic crude:
How much biomass or energy is used to create that synthetic crude?
Will it be self-sustaining?
Will it require turning more and more of the planet's ecosystem over to growing the biomass needed?
And please don't try to fob off the questions with "don't you worry your pretty little head, we'll come up with some clever technology sometime to deal with it" nonsense this time.
As I said in another post "Now hopefully, yes, we will come up with a new technology that will solve the problem but until then, how about we just start acting a little more sensibly and try to use the energy that we produce in a more *efficient* manner to put off that crisis point a bit?"
Again I ask "Is that too hard to accept as a reasonable argument without resorting to personal attacks?"
How about some answers, Andrew?
"You need to think in terms of available energy and how well we can harness it, and turn it into useful things."
Please, Andrew, tell us the difference between *available* energy and *usable* energy. (Hint: An atomic bomb produces LOTS of energy, but exactly how much of that is usable?)
It's all very well posting clever pictures of "this is how much energy we use and this is how much is available", but it doesn't say how much energy we will have to *expend* in order to get that, does it?
"Now we may or may not be doomed - but we're certainly doomed if we follow you. We wouldn't be here today if our ancestors had. Simple, really."
Oh dear, Andrew, another personal attack, one of many you use when you have no way of countering an argument that you don't like.
You keep making comments about "bedwetting" (do you really think they add anything to the validity of your points?) yet you keep reaching for your security blanket of "we'll be able to sort this all out eventually" and pulling it over your head in the hope that it will make the nasty bogeyman of increasing usage versus limited production go away and stop scaring you.
What my argument actually is (as opposed to your Straw Man caricature of it) is that we, as a species, are using more and more energy and at some point we *WILL* reach a point at which demand will exceed supply.
Now hopefully, yes, we will come up with a new technology that will solve the problem but until then, how about we just start acting a little more sensibly and try to use the energy that we produce in a more *efficient* manner to put off that crisis point a bit?
Is that too hard to accept as a reasonable argument without resorting to personal attacks?
"My point is that the transition to synthetics will not require us to live in yurts, or whittle, as the Peakers want"
... is a ridiculous Straw Man argument.
You might like to look it up on http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html and, at the same time, look at some of the (many) other fallacies ("bedwetting" = Ad Hominem) that you've managed to use in place of actual reasoned debate.
Do you really think that that sort of thing adds any credibility to your arguments?
... but what that site *doesn't* say is how much biomass or energy is used to create that synthetic crude. Will it be self-sustaining? Will it require turning more and more of the planet's ecosystem over to growing the biomass needed?
Perhaps Andrew Orlowski could take time out from making ridiculous ad hominem attacks and address the errors in his logic?
How many extra Social Workers would that £224 million pounds have paid for along with the £44 million running costs every year?
*THAT* is what this money should have been spent on and it would have meant that the overworked and underpaid and demoralised people who are trying to do their job with totally inadequate resources and backup might be able to protect the children who so desperately need someone to look after their needs, rather than a Big Brother database which can record in exquisite detail how the system failed them...
Barbara Ellen says "When did porn (watching strangers shagging) become a basic human right?" perhaps it is really that that she thinks that because *she* doesn't like it, nobody should be allowed to see it, in other words "Freedom of Expression" really means "Freedom to look at things that Barbara Ellen likes, but not otherwise"
... whether someone has an axe to grind here and what they're really saying is "kiddie fiddlers shouldn't be able to hide!"
This could become the first stage in sneaking through a version of "Sarah's Law" where one piece of information on its own isn't sufficient to identify someone, but combined with other pieces of information which also, on their own, aren't sufficient, *could* be used to identify a sex offender and let the lynch mobs get to work...
Follow this through: I already have affordable-leather.co.uk if I then register affordable-leather.xxx what's to stop someone (probably in the USA) saying "Hey, this is an .xxx domain yet they're trying to sneak one past us by having *other* versions of the *same* domain! We should make the software block *all* versions of that domain!"
Sure, it's not sensible, but that never stopped the Moral Minority, did it?
... as the cyber-squatters try to grab xxx.xxx fuck.xxx sex.xxx and so on.
Meanwhile legitimate adult (but non-pornographic) businesses like mine have to decide whether we should go for the .xxx version of our domain *as well as* the other ones we already have resulting in extra costs and possible censorship of our domain and loss of customers or not getting it and seeing someone else grab it, possibly taking custom away from us...!
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
... will whatever version of Linux I get *work* with my system!
Twenty five or so years ago when I had plenty of time to spare, I was quite happy hacking through code and using CLIs and playing with stuff just to see what happens.
Now I've got other stuff to think about, I don't have the inclination to mess around like that, so unless I can get a simple answer to "will it run the software (and hardware) on my system* without lots of hassle?" much as I'd like to try, the fact of the matter is that Windows *does* do that.
*Most used programs: Firefox, Thunderbird, Photoshop, MediaPlayer Classic, Word, Excel, hardware: USB Scanner, Epson Printer, TomTom USB interface.
Also will it read data from my windows partitions without hassle and can I use Acronis True Image to back up its partition.
I'm no fanboi of any type, just someone who has other things to use his time for, so if someone could actually tell me I'd be grateful!
Are you one of those selfish people who think that signs saying "No Mobile Phones" and "No headphones" in the Quiet Carriages on trains don't apply to you? And then get all stroppy when somone points out that sign as if the person *complaining* about the selfish idiot is doing something wrong??
It's just a shame that the Guards on these trains don't actually bother to "walk through the train" as they claim they'll be doing and do their job of telling selfish idiots to move or shut up.
"that metal thing separating you from the oncoming motorway traffic is rated to contain a 1.5 ton CAR"
And it will also do damn all to protect a motorcyclist who is liable to either slam into a solid post or slide right under it.
Of course upgrading barriers to actualy provide proper safety protectin costs money...
"britain is not free and civilized either"
I don't think the previous poster said that (or implied it), especially since Britain certainly isn't until we get rid of nonsense like the OPA, Dangerous Pictures (and Cartoons) Acts and redefine the job of the BBFC to stop being nannies who will order nasty bits of films cut out and simply *classify* the films according to content.
... the companies delete your data, but just before they do, they exercise their right to sell it to another company (which, of course, you had to agree with when you registered) and the fact that they own that company and still have full access to your data is a mere irrelevancy, isn't it...?
It would be interesting to know why my post linking to the "Mohammed Image Archive" showing that, in the past, Muslims have often depicted Mohammed was first approved and then subsequently disapproved.
Perhaps without the link the mere statement of fact will be acceptable?
Obviously you don't know what a small business actually *is* and don't realise that things like this are actually *checked*.
You also obviously don't comprehend that this is not "paying less tax" it simply allows SMEs who are having difficulties with cashflow to pay off their taxes in installments instead of having to fork out a big lump sum that would leave them unable to pay wages or buy the stock and materials they need to keep operating.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019