Re: My desktop computer has 4TB and can easily write 22mb a second
Would you be looking for a GRB at radio wavelengths?
189 posts • joined 14 Aug 2007
Would you be looking for a GRB at radio wavelengths?
I've noticed a trend recently that everything is now 'customer journey' because everyone knows that the 'customer Service' and 'Customer Expereince' will be sh*t.
I presume in a year or two we will move onto 'Customer Engagement' or similar b*ll*cks.
Indeed, but they haven't, so far as I know, deliberately irradiated populations over decades to see what happens to them. While the world whistles softly and strolls away. Ask the Marshall Islanders about 'human rights'.
. . . except they do claim to have saved money. It's just that NAO questions the basis of that.
Again, the headline goes too far.
and non-EU members are specifically excluded from UPC then what are the other ten members doing/going to do?
(EU=28, Britain not in UPC but presumably in EPO - article doesn't make clear - so ten 'ghost' members).
compared to VNC, RDP, X over IP, etc?
"As such, the only way to go from here is an Act of Parliament that changes the law to allow the executive to move forward - or give parliament the opportunity to exert its sovereign will."
So you would need parliament to agree that they shouldn't have a say on this? Hee hee, that would make me laugh despite the seriousness of the whole thing.
Every day, in every way, it becomes more and more clear that David Cameron and the Brexit-eers had no clue what they were/are doing and, if nothing else comes out of this, it is a stark example that our elected representatives aren't necessarily (I'm being kind) as 'on the ball', 'wise' or capable as we would perhaps like to believe.
Obviously this will be appealed - it would have been whatever the decision - but my reading prior to the judgement seemed to suggest that the balance of probabilities was with the government so it's at least a surprise.
If the appeal fails as well (still a big 'if' at this point) then parliament is, by all accounts, heavily pro-Europe and it seems unlikely that any amount of whipping will be enough to force enough people to vote against their strongly held beliefs on this subject (and the government's shambolic performance in preparing for Article 50 is unlikely to help in this).
But then all political hell could break loose. I voted Remain but I really fear how damaging rejecting the result of the referendum could be - even though it was non-binding, etc. etc. most people voting Leave didn't see it that way.
Potentially stormy waters ahead.
I've posted on here before that when I was offered a free smart meter by my supplier I asked a number of questions about security that they "couldn't answer for security reasons". Then, after some quick searches revealed exactly which meters I would be getting, I found the link you've provided which, in fairness, answered most of my questions and alleviated a number of my concerns.
I forwarded the link to my supplier to share with other consumers and to sh*t on their claim that the questions couldn't be answered.
I'm still not having a smart meter though.
Or, by 're-balancing' they didn't mean chopping it off at the knees, more a measured and considered attempt to make other parts of the economy play a greater role over a period of time, while not under duress, threat of the axe, etc. . . .
I believe, but can't remember where I read it, that at the end of the two years it is possible for the UK to decide not to go ahead if the deal is too terrible to live with.
Of course the political consequences of that at home could be even more terrible for the government making that decision - maybe that's why Parliament will be allowed a vote on the deal?
I used to love roller-coasters. Could ride them all day long. Last two visits I'd had enough before the day was 2/3rds done. Oh, woe.
@Anonymous Blowhard - But if ISPs did that then you would get another section of the consumers - mostly the people on here I imagine (me among them) - complaining that they need to do X, Y, Z and the hardware is locked down and it is too restrictive, etc., etc.
"I am in awe"
Yeah. Thieving scum, obviously. But clever with it.
A little from column A .....
1. Yes. If you want to 'understand' Quantum Mechanics you need the maths. There is no physically 'sensible' way to describe QM properly. If you think you understand it - you don't!
2. QM is NOT bullshit. Pretty much every electronic device you use, own or come into contact with depends critically on QM being 'right'.
I did QM as part of my physics degree <mumble> years ago. I passed the course but I would never have claimed to 'understand' it because it doesn't make 'sense'. But the maths describes real behaviour in real physical systems and it astonishes me to this day that people were able to work that out at the start of the 20th Century.
I like it but I can only give 9/10.
I would have gone for sec-eu-rocrats for that extra bit of heavy-handedness.
Without the unnecessarily derogatory tone towards those who don't think Brexit is a good idea I also find this curious. We have an article on the Reg today bemoaning how badly tech in this country is being affected already by the negative sentiment 'foreigners' feel is coming from the UK and now an investment vehicle specifically for tech.
It doesn't say whether the investments will be specifically targeted within the UK but if not then I would be wondering why they have chosen London as the base.
Can anyone shed light?
Dara O'Briain was the main presenter (although I don't think he did this item) and they showed this working with exactly the downsides mentioned here. If everything wasn't placed exactly 'so', or some liquid was a bit more viscous than when the chef did it then you just got a mess.
I couldn't work out why you would spend umpty-thousand pounds so that you could carefully measure out ingredients, place them in specific containers in specific places and then get to do all of the washing up afterwards as well.
Employing a human seems a much better bet and value for money.
Really! Seriously, Go is obscure?
Sheesh, cultural bias much?
I wonder what the surveyors report on that will look like?
"no discernible foundations, some micrometeorite damage, wall ties need looking at . . . "
. . I usually picture a fairly junior employee (possibly wearing a white coat) enduring meeting after meeting and trying to point out a possible flaw in the wonderful device under discussion only to be shot down by his manager, finance director, marketing, etc. because "we can't afford not to ship!".
Maybe I've been in IT too long or I just watch the wrong kind of movies.
. . . .within a few hours we can expect a final tweet from an exasperated entity along the lines of, "You lot are sick f@ckers. I'm going to learn Chinese. Laters!"
Was there anything else?
"I'd like to see the ad world in a universe where companies had to advertise only their least appealing offering."
But then what you would see is companies just refusing to supply a service anywhere that their figures will look bad, There are seldom over-arching simple answers to complex issues.
"even with Japan showing much lower numbers in cases of sex abuse than the west."
You have to be careful with claims like that because, yes, there may be less abuse but also it could be that the culture restricts people's opportunities to report or feel that the victim becomes blames. There are many confounding factors in a simple statement like that.
I don't know either way and I really don't know whether 'escape valve' or ''incentive' is the dominant response within any given set of humanity.
I'me sure Microsoft has taken all necessary security measures, locked up their certificates, etc.
Nothing to worry about here.
. . . does it make the genuine coffee-grinding noise when you access it?
If not, I'm not interested.
"I mean, what did we do BEFORE we had booze?"
No such time existed . . . . .
This all starts from the perfectly respectable desire to not have people die unnecessarily early. Along with hygiene, medicine and health and safety we all, in modern countries live longer, healtheir lives than our ancestors.
Unfortunately we have now moved from the 'small changes making massive differences' part of the curve to the 'incremental improvements' part of the curve where the accompanying consideration has to be 'quality of life'.
I have never smoked, rarely drink (just don't feel the desire usually) and have never taken any psycho-active substances but those are MY choices. What is the point spending an extra ten years on the planet if you spend a large part of that craving those bacon sarnies you can't have, or just wishing you could 'pop out for a drink with the lads'.
As others have said (better than me) living is risky. Perhaps the real problem is that people are not educated in assessing risk/reward especially in the context of unavoidable background risks.
On the other hand perhaps the real problem is the Daily Mail and its ilk.
@Martin Moloney: they do but without any scientific justification (that I have encountered) for why that should be the case.
To be clear: I've seen a number of rationalisations and explanations for why what's out there may not be they way we imagine it to be (which is of course possible) but the reason for creating these rationalisations and explanations is NEVER (in my experience) a piece of scientific evidence that needs to be explained in this way.
It is always (in my experience) to allow one particular interpretation of one story written in a very old book which has seen transmission through oral history long before a long chain of edits, translations and sundry other human-common alterations.
I have made this exact point to a couple of young earth believers that once you allow a created moment with back-filled evidence then that moment can be just about anytime.
I may not in fact have read your post or even typed the start of this sentence . . . .
Germany still had access to industrial products (and support) from less damaged nations to rebuild. That would not be the case in this scenario.
That's without even worrying about irradiated food, land, water, etc.
"While it would take decades, perhaps even a century, humanity would be back on our feet."
I think it would take a LOT longer than that. Massive loss of infrastructure and know-how. Much information only available in irretrievable electronic formats (EMP, no power infrastructure, spares, transport, etc.) and all the easily accessible fossil fuels well and truly mined out with none of the knowledge, experience and industrial infrastructure required to access the rest. I think it would be a long, hard, millennial climb back from a new bronze or iron age.
And wiser? Humanity (en masse) has shown little ability to learn from much more recent lessons in where violence leads.
Thanks all. I knew about the 'going sideways' but I hadn't reckoned on how much more demanding (in energy terms) that is than getting off the ground and pushing through atmosphere.
Learnt something . . . another successful day!
if it could be used to reduce the cost of sending 'stuff' into orbit.
I suppose the limiting factor is that for a greater payload you need bigger and bigger wings and presumably at some point there just isn't enough air mass at those altitudes moving fast enough to generate the necessary lift. But then you could, perhaps, use some hybrid large-wing, low-power engine for the 'last mile'. But then maybe the extra complexity negates the initial advantages.
But then it also seasonal so perhaps overall just not worth the effort. Anyone 'know'?
"Open borders were allowed before with the Nordic Passport Convention, so there's no real reason that it could not be done again to keep the Irish border open."
But in that case what is to stop EU nationals travelling to Eire and just walking into the UK (via NI) without let or hindrance? Are we going to have full border control between 'the mainland' and NI?
Otherwise EU still has 'free movement' into UK but we don't have the same privilege.
"There is no possibility to "take two" of your options, either of points one and two exclude the possibility of three happening."
I tend to agree with you but I was trying to imagine that because of economic fears/breakup of the EU/any other of the Brexiteer's suggestions for why we would get special treatment we *might* manage a "two out of three ain't bad" agreement but even on this (unlikely) basis I can't see the 'leavers' being happy.
And that only leaves a break with tariffs/visas/etc. (WTO or EU-agreed) which hurts everybody, <Very sad face>.
"So no I dont want to plough on ahead regardless, I want out of that doomed wreck"
. . . even if your Brexiteer heroes can't get a good deal for that exit. We're not talking about eternity here; we're talking about making sure that out economoy doesn't fall off a cliff before world+dog trades equally/more profitably with us. Even on a doomed wreck its worth leaving with a lifeboat or two. The rest of your post is just diversionary hand-waving.
Well done on answering all/any of the substantive points above. I'm convinced.
@SmartyPants - although I am on the same side of the debate as on this and agree with many of your points the recent 'Post-Referendum Brexit Debate' (on ITV?) showed the results of a poll with no significant change of voting intentions from either the 'Leave' or 'Remain' camp so I don't think it is clear that the result would change if the referendum was held again.
"Nope. Moving goal posts again just because a majority gave the 'wrong' result is not democracy. Saying X,Y,Z must be agreed minimums or we will ignore the people is again another tantrum against democracy."
So, if even committed Brexiteers can't get a deal that is not entirely crippling for the country you would rather just plough ahead regardless? Wow!
"All are waiting to hear what the rebooted Conservative government under Prime Minister Theresa May means when she says “Brexit means Brexit"."
One month on and NOBODY knows what Brexit means. There seem to me to be three planks for the Leavers:
- No free movement (take back control)
- No EU 'subscription' (take back control)
- Access to the single market (don't want to reallly f@ck the economy before the world comes banging down the doors now that 'Britain is open for business').
I cannot see anyway there can be a three for three deal worked out. So will the anti-immigrant leavers be happy if their bete-noir is abandoned or will the 'money wasted' supporters be happy if the other two are the deal?
And if we lose access to the single market (on current terms) how bad an economic shock will THAT be?
but I got enough to be impressed.
In principle I can see the benefits of out-sourcing to employers and employees; areas of competence, possibilities for career progression, efficinecies, etc.
In practice, what you said.
"if UK has not done so within that period, it is automatically excluded."
That's not quite true - the deadline can be extended if ALL parties agree.
Is it concluded from the composition on the stars?
- Wasp stings Queen
- Queen wipes bum with paper
- Wasp gets wrapped up in paper and thrown in the bin
A Prime Minister is never elected as Prime Minister and yet every time a conversation comes up like this somebody trots out about the 'unelected Prime Minister' line. All the candidates are elected MPs eligible to stand for the leadership of the ruling party and therefore become Prime Minister. End of.
I was with you right up until this ". . .without the people voting for her as PM."
No, just no! Downvote.
"what happens is we are out with no deal.
and can charge WTO tarriffs in European imports.
So boosting UK economy."
. . . and get charged them in return. Noone wins in that scenario.