Sign in / up

* Posts by Mad Mike

1379 publicly visible posts • joined 30 May 2007

Page:

New smart meter tells Brits exactly what they already know

Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Down

Re: It'll only work when ...

@Simon Hobson.

I know this is what the government thinks will happen. But, if they really believe they can implement any form of remote power cut and get the population to accept it, they're dreaming. Yes, it happened in the 70s, but people are vastly different now. Rolling power cuts of any type simply won't be accepted. And, if they really think people will allow them to turn devices on and off in the home, they are equally deluded. People want to use appliances when they want to use them. Yes, it will work for some heating (economy 7 effectively), but there was already a method for that. Doesn't need smart meters. The majority of household consumption is actually non-neogtiable. People don't make a cup of tea when the government or demand says, they make it when they're thirsty. People don't watch telly when the government says, but when there programs are on, or they have time. Maybe some kitchen appliances might be possible, such as washing machines, tumble driers and dishwashers, but that's possible now using a simple timer.

In reality, this is not practical in some cases anyway. If you have a seperate washing machine and tumble drier (more efficient that a combined device), how do you get the washing from one to the other in the middle of the night whilst you're asleep?

The government are absolutely bonkers if they think they will be able to dictate this without widespread public disorder. And, if they think people will believe wind power is working when this is going on, they're even more mad.

7 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Nonsense...

@Tom 15.

I really dispair for the future of the human race sometimes. Any idiot that doesn't have some idea of the relative consumption figures of these devices should be put down for the sake of the human race. I can see it being difficult between like devices, but others.....really. If they can't work out that things with heaters in them (e.g. kettles, washing machines etc.) take more than consumer electronics, they really need shooting.

By the way, all the studies show that energy displays don't work at all. They initially reduce consumption by around 10-20%, then after a period of time (3-12 months depending on customer), it reverts to normal for almost everyone. Only the very diehard greens continue with the reduction. The reason is simple. It's initially a novelty and people like the idea of paying less. However, after a while, people simply get fedup with watching a meter all the time and it dictating their lives, so simply stop. Then, consumption goes back up.

It's all a complete waste of time.

24 5

UK man to spend year in the clink for Facebook account hack

Mad Mike

There must be more to this................

There must be considerably more to this than is being published. This lad lives just down the road from me and 12 months is a stupid sentence even for British justice (and all its stupidities) for just breaking into someones facebook account. It's interesting how none of the media reports explains why the FBI was involved or whose facebook account it was. I can only assume it's someone important (in whatever way you want to consider important).

Obviously, what he did whilst in possession of the account is also a contributory factor and again, there is a lack of information in the press. Presumably all this means that whatever he did was very embarrassing for the person in question and therefore is being hushed up, albeit odd that the press are playing ball.

Given that no details of previous similar offences have been revealed, it would take a bit to get this sort of sentence through other crimes on a first offence. Whatever it was, it must have been either very bad, or very good!!

9 1

Google compressed-filth legal battle with smut site ended in US

Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Legal question

@AC.

True, but the UK/USA juristictions do not necessarily make that much difference. One of the strange things around the world, is that a huge amount of the world uses a legal system based and very similar to the UK one. When you look at the British empire of the past, you can see why. Indeed, it's quite common for US cases to be quoted in British courts and vice versa and to be used as legal precedent!!

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Manslaughter/murder

@A 11.

I agree. Google claim to be whiter than white, which everyone knows is rubbish, but TPB were blatant. However, the law is supposed to be impartial and deals with facts not veneer. But then, we all know the truth!!

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Manslaughter/murder

@Maty.

True, but very dodgy ground. I know it goes on, but anyone doing this is treading a very fine line. Provided the reason for administering the medication is pain relief, it is technically OK. However, it's pretty widely acknowledged that if relatives complain etc., the nurse or doctor can be on shaky ground. Personally, I think this is just compassion and similar to recent judgements where people who have helped relatives die have not been tried as it's not 'in the public interest'.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Manslaughter/murder

@Mad Mike.

Just to be exactly correct, there are a few exclusions that allow you to legally kill someone, such as legal execution, soldier at time of war, self-defence, but nothing in the sense that AC was referring to. In law, it is not accepted that killing someone can be in their best interests. In normal civilian senses and under normal circumstances, the only one you might meet is self-defence and I can't imagine the person who then ask for it, or think it's in their best interests.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: Manslaughter/murder

@AC.

Afraid you need to look beyond the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry. Then, you would understand. I didn't necessarily use the correct legal definitions (because they are often confusing unless in the legal business), but the argument and analogy remains true.

Essentially, murder requires a prior intent to kill or a blatant disregard for the persons safety and therefore a lack of care if they are mortally injured. There are definitions of what represents malice aforethought, but basically they equate to this. The principle word is aforethought....e.g. prior intent. Manslaughter is when you kill someone without prior intent or disregard for their safety. For instance.......if there is a fight in the street and you punch someone, they fall and die through hitting their head on the pavement, you may well be charged with manslaughter.

By the way, you cannot deliberately kill someone for their own good and not face a murder charge. There have been numerous cases recently where someone has killed or aided the death of a relative and has faced murder charges. In the most recent cases, whilst technically guilty of murder, the CPS has chosen not to continue with a prosecution as 'it would not be in the public interest'. However, there is nothing in law that allows you to kill someone, even if they ask you to.

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Down

Exactly the point here

@AndyS

Exactly the point Andy. TPB is indexing pirated material, potentially Perfect 10 pictures. And, Google is indexing pirated material, including Perfect 10 pictures. So, the difference is?????

There is no difference. In law, even if you don't have intent, you are still guilty of the crime, just at a lower level. However, Google have been told they haven't committed the crime, therefore TPB haven't either. The level at this point is irrelevant. If you kill someone accidently, you are guilty of manslaughter. If you kill them deliberately with forethought, you are guilty of murder. The lack of intent to kill in the former does not make you any less guilty of a crime. It's just the severity is reduced. So, either both Google and TPB are guilty (at the respective level according to intent), or both are innocent.

6 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Down

Re: I'm Confused!

@AndyS

Yes and no. Googles intent is to index the whole of the net. However, what was questioned in this case was the use of thumbnails, which is a presentation mechanism that Google uses as part of its business. So, they are showing a preview of the image. However, TPB are indexing whatever people ask it to index. Same as many other sites. Rather than trawling the whole of the internet, they are simply asking people to provide indexing. They don't show thumbnails. Therefore, the 'intent' of google is to show previews of material, some of which they know full well will be in copyright violation. If you believe the industry, this could be a hell of a lot. What does google do to prevent this? Nothing at all. However, TPB is not showing any preview or the imagine in any way, shape or form. If indexing is allowed, as per the judgement, TPB is actually in less violation than google as they don't show the previews!!

Yes, the law does take intent into account, but you can't show intent by the contentof the site. Just because TPB may have 'pirate' in their name and may index mostly pirated material doesn't show intent, especially as the site owners don't control the indexing!! You could argue they're doing nothing to stop it, and I would agree. But then, neither is Google!! Both companies are making money out of indexing (advertising etc.). So, what is the difference.....................

4 0

Indiana cops arrest violent 6-year-old

Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Up

@Burkhard Kloss.

True, but only if you give them the tools. When a teacher can't even lay hands on a child for fear of being sacked and prosecuted, what options do you have. Contrary to popular opinion, it isn't just the lower end of society that has problems either. I've seen a lot of very priviledged children kick and get very violent when someone dares to say no to them. They've been given everything they could ever desire (except probably love) and when someone dares to say no...............all hell brakes loose.

So, this is not just a problem at the bottom, but throughout society.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Up

Re: "well developed sense of morality"

Homer1.

I agree totally. You try and reason with them and depending on their age, some will take it, some won't. Obviously, this depends on theri home life as well. If they've been dealt with reasonably from day one, they're more likely to think about it and try to reason it, whereas if they've been abused, neglected or pampered all their life, they're more likely to kick off and keep kicking or whatever. Nothing wrong with talking to children and trying to explain, it's just that we have to accept that some are either not capable or don't wish to think and reason it. Then, there needs to be a sanction. Nobody is talking about beating a child, but simply administering a smack or restraining them as a final resort.

Anyone who can't tell the difference between a smack and a beating needs to question their reasoning ability.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: @Mad Mike

@AC.

I think you need to reread what I wrote. I said if a policeman told you to do something and you didn't, he was entitled to use force. I never said he was striking the person to punish them. So, if you're an adult and kicking someone, a policeman is quite entitled to stop that (and indeed the attacked person is) using force (minimum). That is might is right. Violence is being used (albeit minimum) to enforce what you are ordering the person to do.

I never said the child should be struck for not understanding. I said it was OK to strike a child to make them do as you say (providing what you're requesting is reasonable).

To put in context of this case, the principle should have had the right to self-defence from being kicked and he should have been able to forcibly restrain the child (or if secondary school strike if necessary) to prevent being kicked. Unfortunately, liberal idiots and peoplelike you have effectively removed that right and therefore the kid can go on kicking his with no issues. You should never strike or restrain a child after the event as they can't necessarily understand cause and effect over a period of time. But, if the principle had restrained the child (effectively force being used) at the time, the child just might have learnt that one someone in authority tells you to stop doing something, you stop. Period.

This will ultimately prevent the child from receiving a blow from a baton later when he starts going around kicking people in later life. That's called parenting, teaching morals, teaching respect, teaching that you're not the only person that matters and that society has rules you must not break. Ultimately, it wil give him a better adult life.

Your method will just teach him he can do what he likes, there are no repercussions and this will continue until he becomes an adult and suddenly gets his eyes open. A little physical chastisement early will save him a lot of pain later. I can only hope you're not a parent.

1 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Up

@Mooseman.

I totally agree. There are some kids that have genuine behavioural problems, although I believe fewer than thought, but the vast majority are from bad parenting for a whole raft of reasons, including in some cases, violence. There seems to be an industry at the moment, setup to create 'illnesses' to make out it isn't a parental failing and this in its own right, means that poor parents divorce themselves from responsibility even more.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

@Mooseman.

I'm afraid you're wrong, or at least in part. There are many reasons you get violent kids. Sometimes it's violence in the home. Sometimes it's because they weren't violent once, got away with it, got what they wanted and therefore do it again. Maybe no violence in the home. It may be because the parents are basically absent etc.etc.etc. Violence in the home is certainly one reason for violence in kids, but it is far from the only one. In managing the child, it is of course, important to understand why the violence is occuring and any causal links that can be found.

But, violence begets violence is lazy thinking, just the same as no violence equals well behaved kids. I know of plenty of kids that have never had a finger laid on them at home and are much the worse for it. They know (from their parents point of view at least) there is no final chastisement available and therefore know they can do what they like without repercussions. That is, until they become adult and meet the police and judicial system.

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: @voland

@James Micallef.

I totally agree with your comments, but society has removed teachers from this role, not necessarily the teachers. Yes, by calling the cops he's admitted defeat, but what other choice does he have? Society has removed all the previous options he had, so now the best he has is a stern talking to. Clearly, this is not the responsibility of all parents, but I've known plenty of parents go in and complain to the head when a teacher shouts at their poor little darling. On one occasion, a small child was about to light a gas tap in a science classroom. The teacher shouted at him to get him to stop this clearly very dangerous act. Result. In rush the parents and want him disciplined for shouting at their poor little love. You couldn't make up!! Perhaps they would prefer him burnt to a crisp (can then sue the school). Idiots.

So, teachers do this because they have no real means of sanction anymore if the person refuses to co-operate and children of this age simply can't be reasoned with in an adult manner.

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Thumb Down

Re: Bad position

@AC.

That rather depends on the context of the situation. It is absolutely not necessarily wrong for someone to be in trouble for hitting back under certain circumstances. If he was defending himself, did what was necessary and then walked away.........that's fine. if he hit back with retribution in mind when no longer in danger, that is not. The law allows the right to self defence under all circumstances. Your comment suggests children don't have that right. They absolutely do. However, it's about defence, not about retribution.

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: The good old days when a quick smak fixed 99% of the se problems.

@AC.

Errrrrr. Yes, it would be OK for a policeman to administer a smack to an adult if they're not co-operating and that's exactly what they do. Policeman tells you to stop. You don't. They are entitled to stop you using minimum force, including a smack if necessary, but more likely to be a blow from a baton. That's the law in most nations on this planet.

I'm not saying a smack is the first resort, it is definitely the last, but it isn't an issue either. Kids don't necessarily understand and in order to protect them, or society, sometimes force has to be used. I just love the way some people think you can reason in an adult manner with a 5 year old and that they are old enough to understand, comprehend and then do.

Ultimately, society is based around force. The armed forces use it, the police use it and the law uses it. If you contravene societies laws in a bad enough way, they will force you to prison and forcibly detain you. They won't talk nicely to you until you comprehend. They force you, using violence if necessary, because some adults simply will not or cannot understand what they've done.

5 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: The good old days when a quick smak fixed 99% of the se problems.

@Lost all faith.

As usual, the anti-corporal punishment block take the extreme view. There's a world of difference between a smack and beating the hell out of a kid. Yes, you should try reasoning with a kid first, but they don't have full reasoning powers when young (some never) and therefore can't understand. So, what do you do? If one of your kids was about to put their hand into boiling water, what would you do. Explain it's wrong. Fine. Then, they try to do it. Do you physically restrain them (which is effectively violence), or do you try and explain quickly again, or do you let them do it?

Every nation on this earth allows physical violence or restraint when needed. That's how police (and others) work. The issue is minimum force. I would restrain the child and then try and explain it. Yes, I've used force, but to protect them. Ultimately, a smack for a child misbehaving can also be protection. It makes them behave better, learn, do better at school and then not be a scrote. What's the matter with that?

You are saying that when someone commits physical violence on you (whether he's 6 or 60 is irrelevant), you explain to them how wrong it is, rather than restrain them or stop it in some way. Silly. Nobody's saying kids should be beaten, but a smack now and then is not beating. It should, however, always be accompanied by an explanation.

13 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
WTF?

Re: @voland

Volands Right Hand seems to be demonstrating his point rather well. I'm not going to deny there are a lot of useless teachers out there for a variety of reasons; lack of English being one of them (shared by Voland by the looks). However, nations have decided to give them no method of control. Yes, some don't make lessons interesting and complain when the kids kick off. That's their fault. However, there are some kids that kick off no matter what you do and then what? What options have the government given the teacher to control them? Discipline starts in the home and by definition then extends into the classroom as teachers are 'in loco parentis'. In other words, whilst in their care, the teacher is the parent.

However, if the parents don't do anything about bad behaviour at home, the teacher isn't going to stand a chance. The state has for years taken away right after right from parents and then complain when things go wrong. I wonder why. The state can't understand the difference between a reasonable slap or smack and beating the c**p out of a kid, so they ban the lot.

7 0
Mad Mike
WTF?

Damn good hiding

Given the 'sue everyone' mentality in the USA, what else could the man do? The kid needs a damn good hiding and severe curtailment of priviledges for a while, but I'm pretty sure the principle would be sued for that. That's even more likely as the parents presumably think this sort of behaviour is acceptable if they've sent a 6 year old to school like this.

I'm not sure that execution of the child is fair, as it wouldn't solve the problem. The parents could breed again and have another bast**d like this. I would have thought execution of the parents to be far more effective in preventing this happening again, followed by a damn good hiding for the kid from a person in authority. Tasers, side arm batons etc. optional.

13 0

Crytek: Schemes to strike second-hand games biz 'awesome'

Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: I got some second hand food he can have

They got their 'money back' when the first person purchased the game. So many other markets don't have the same issue. When you buy a car, the original manufacturer gets a profit as well as the garage etc. When you sell the car on, does the manufacturer get anything? No, of course not. So, according to your logic, the secondhand car market shouldn't exist. Wrong.

Car manufacturers simply found another business model. Their cars need maintenance, so they have main dealers who will service your car (making profit), whilst buying the required goods from the manufacturer (who then make a profit). For games, this means sell the game initially and making a profit and then whoever provides the central servers (for online gaming) gets paid a monthly fee (needn't be much) to run the servers. This can be the manufacturer or someone else. That's their choice.

6 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: I'm sorry

Of course there's an ongoing cost. However, having a good game with a loyal and growing ongoing customer base is surely great marketing for your new games? So, why not pay for the intial setup and a couple of years of costs out of the original game and the remaining time out of your marketing budget? I reckon it's more effective than poster/TV/radio campaigns.

Alternative, is to offload the running of the central servers to someone else who charges a small monthly fee for use. Then, groups of players could set them up etc. This would be offset by reducing the price of the original game and these costs no longer fall on the producer. Of course, they wouldn't do this, as it's all a smokescreen to increase their profits for no effort.

6 0

Suspected freetloaders to face piracy letters in 2014

Mad Mike
Reply Icon
Joke

Re: Freetards most definitely are suspect

Next thing you know, they'll be charging for air........anyone remember Total Recall?

After all, nothing is for free.

0 0

Megaupload case near collapse: report

Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: @Indies

@Matthew 25.

I know iDevices are not Macs. What he was saying is that the best games go to the most protected platform, citing his move from Windows to iPhone. I countered that by saying in that case, the best games should be on Mac not Windows as Macs are more protected than Windows. However, that is not true, i.e. his argument is false. I wasn't trying to suggest iDevices are Macs or anything, but actually answering the point he made with another example.

7 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Let justice prevail

I agree. Prosecute him in NZ and if found guilty, he takes the appropriate punishment. Unfortunately, the good old US of A and the American media companies have ensured this can't happen. It will look like a vendetta and the possibility of a fair trial has pretty much gone. The FBI posted trumped up stupid charges to try and get him, showing the persecution.

They need to get sensible and actually enforce the law rather than the law according to their backers.....e.g. the media companies. The FBI is a laughing stock the world over because of this as it has shown without doubt who they report to, and it doesn't lead anywhere near the White House or the Capitol. They report to a place in California.

I'm not for copyright violation, but when you can't win (even with the law on your side), it's time to try a different tack. Being too thick to think of one is no excuse..........that's Darwinian evolution.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: The New Justice[tm]

@h4rm0ny.

Nobody is saying that copyright violation is right or that it didn't go on with Megaupload. Nobody knows how much of the business was built on this (well, maybe Dotcom), but it would apply to any online digital locker. Either you force them all to be private and not allow everyone to see the downloads, or their function cannot exist if you take copyright to be more important than everything else. Reality is, copyright is important, but there are other more important things.

It's a bit like napalming your garden to get rid of some weeds. Yes, it does the job, but you kill a lot of flowers as well and given a short period of time, the weeds will just start spouting again. So, overall, you've done a lot of damage for what?

Even the American military have begun to realise this by using guided missile rather than squadrons of B52s for bombing. Seems like the civilian areas of America are behind the times again.

You can take as many dotcoms out of business as you like, but copyright violation will happen just as much, maybe more. The answer is to adapt your model and make it irrelevant.

9 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: @Indies

Last time I looked, the games for Windows were far better than those for the Mac.

19 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Cowboy Justice in the Wild West

They couldn't find a rope strong enough for dotcom.............

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Just goes to show

Yes, the USA, home of the morally bankrupt. This is what really sucks. They go on about the moral high ground and how he's breaking copyright etc. and have a good point there. However, they then use it as an excuse to be morally bankrupt and downright evil in how they deal with him, removing their moral right totally.

Also, given their actions in recruiting Nazi and Japanese scientists after the war, moving them to the USA and then ensuring they never faced justice for their crimes, rather shows their moral bankruptcy.

11 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: "Scot free"?

I can see the case for compensation right now. Whatever the merits or not of Dotcom as a person, his business has been destroyed by a combination of the NZ and USA authorities. Now, it looks like they won't be getting him for anything. Even if they go after him on copyright charges in NZ, that'll be dubious as it looks like a personal vendetta rather than proper police work and justice.

So, who'll end up paying the bill? I find it unlikely he'll allow them to destroy his business and not pay compensation and they seem to have so royally screwed up that liability can be assured.

Wonder what the final bill will be.

22 0

Great HR mistakes of our time - Aviva fires 1300 by email

Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Retracted within minutes - I'll bet it was

Shame. Might make people more careful if they had to follow through.

Can just imagine some HR idiots sacking people every Friday due to a mistake in the system. Any company that employs people in HR that make this kind of mistake isn't a company to willingly work for.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: HR ??????

No, HR = Humanoid Remnants.

0 0

ISPs facing global clamp down on piracy

Mad Mike

Prohibition doesn't work

Prohibition doesn't work. You can make something illegal and spend fortunes in time and effort, but if people want to do something, they will. There are so many examples of this through history it defies belief. Take just alcohol (America in the early 20th), prositution, drugs etc.etc.

In almost all cases, the answer is simple. Legalise it and take a rake. Drugs cost as much as they do and cause all sorts of problems because of this (robbery etc.) because they are illegal. if they were legal, they could cost a lot less and there could be a tax applied as well. Same for prostition. Already true for alcohol.

When will these idiots realise that when a significant percentage of people want something, they will get it whatever you do. Legal or illegal, it makes no difference. As the open source community is showing itself to be at least the equivalent in skill to the software development companies, they will simply create more and more difficult mechanisms to crack. It'll start with encryption and then get a whole lot deeper.

Essentially, these bodies are fighting a war they cannot possibly win. They might delay it, but won't win, at least not using these tactics. In reality, the majority of people simply want content at a sensible price. If they made the cost sensible and removed DRM etc. people would buy it. Yes, some wouldn't, but they're the same that recorded from the radio and things like that in the past. You weren't ever going to get money off them, so you're not really loosing anything.

2 1

Norwich City FC Web CMS exposes privates. Club respond by calling police.

Mad Mike

New Web Designers

Sounds like they'd be better off employing this lad as their web designer. The current bunch obviously don't have a clue. He's committed (far more than just money) and obviously has a bit of technical nouse.

Free season ticket and kit strips for next season and first match in the directors box by way of apology.

1 0

Cameron 'to change his mind' on the one thing he got right in Defence

Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: He we go again ...

Interesting comments about BAE having a history of developing aircraft into multi-role. I'm not quite sure which roles you're thinking of, but I can't see this.

Tornado - decent ground attack, especially low level. Absolutely awful fighter. Not multi-role. Reconnaisance is a standard conversion from ground attack these days by adding (normally) extra pods.

SEPECAT Jaguar - decent small ground attack. What else? They did mount a couple of sidewinders over the wings, but that didn't make it a fighter.

BAe Hawk - great trainer. Did move it into reasonable ground attack for small/poor nations. Maybe a bit of multi-role, but again, this is a common conversion route.

Lightning - you have to be joking. For its age a good fighter let done by dodgy missiles. It could even outturn a Phantom at altitude. Ground attack.......you must be joking. Nobody ever seriously considered it suited to that. It could carry next to nothing (a decent bomb load is the primary requirement of a ground attack aircraft) and had no real aids etc. That was never a successful conversion.

Typhoon - good fighter. Ground attack....lets wait and see. First signs look reasonable. However, you can get just as good or better ground attack aircraft for considerably less because they don't need all the bells and whistles that fighters have.

In all these, you can say it has the capability, but making it practical and usable is a whole different kettle of fish.

Low level attack is pretty much a relic in most wars these days. There will be exceptions as always, but most don't require it. Any modern airforce will shy away from it as it is so dangerous, as we found out in Iraq. Standoff munitions are the way forward. When you're at or near ground level anyone putting a suitable amount of lead into the sky can shoot you down and there have been plenty of examples of this.

Using a F-16 for strafing is an example of gross stupidity and the pilot probably deserved everything he got. The rotary cannon is totally unsuited for the job.

BAE able to develop world beaters........well one (Hawk) at least. Not sure if this should give them the credability you claim though.

The Sea Vixen v Harrier comparison is a little dubious as the Sea Vixen is from a decade earlier. This is almost a generation in terms of development times in those days which were a lot quicker. Cat launches and arrestor recovery is certainly quite dangerous, but you have to compare the performance differential when up there as well. The F-35C will have considerably more capability than the F-35B. Do the extra risks outweigh the performance degradation? Well, that depends on the scenario. However, if you were to put a Harrier up against a Phantom for instance, the Phantom is far more capable in every way, except possibly agility.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Not true

The B model (and the harrier to a lesser extent) requires a specifically reinforced deck for various factors, not least heat. The Italians and Spanish do have aircraft carriers that can only take VTOL/STOVL aircraft (basically harriers at the moment), but I don't know if they're reinforced enough for a F-35B which would require more. The French actually have an aircraft carrier (Charles de Gaule) which has catapult and arrestor.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Absolutely right

The whole aircraft carrier argument is stupid, as we shouldn't even have them. We don't have enough surface ships in the fleet to effectively protect them. The Americans have known and operated aircraft carriers (proper ones) for years and know the level of other ships required for operation. The cost is huge. The RN has how many ships in active service at the moment? Proper, big ships I mean, not minesweepers etc. How many are available at any moment in time? Each aircraft carrier will need a minimum of 4 escorts and ideally a lot more. They are the biggest target out there. At the moment, we'd use the entire remainder of the navy just to protect them, let alone do anything else.

This is before you even get to the purchase and running costs which will also be a huge burden. We need to decide what we want to do with the armed forces. Either they're around to defend the country, in which case we don't need aircraft carriers and heavy lift capability etc. Or, we want to be able to project power around the world, in which case, we probably do need aircraft carriers and had better be willing to increase the MoDs budget by a large factor.

None of this means the idiots in the MoD shouldn't purchase more intelligently and cheaply though.

0 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: Burgers Are So Tasty

You're not really selling it here. I don't disagree with not focussing on Finance alone and scrapping our industry, but Eurogither.....are you serious?

It isn't selling nicely. It has the original members and a couple of export orders....not exactly a lot. Production numbers won't be high (compared to other aircraft being mentioned) and the Saudi export order has to do with history not ability.

The IRIS-T fitting a Eurofighter is irrelevant as according to the literature, any aircraft that can fire a AIM-9L (Sidewinder) can also fire an IRIS-T. So, that's just about any aircraft in the western world with even a bare air-to-air ability.

I don't disagree that it handles better than a F-16, but then you are comparing it to a 1970s designed aircraft and one designed to be cheaper (massively so) and produced in far larger numbers. They weren't designed to fulfill the same requirement. Do you really mean Indian (??) pilots? Or, have you spelt that wrong? Also, it managed to bring down a F-15? So what. That's another 1970s aircraft. Now, if it managed to bring down a Raptor....that would be impressive. Bearing in mind (if you include development etc. which we've paid for), the unit price for a Eurofighter is about the same as a Raptor (which we don't have to pay development for).

Yes, an oil fired carrier can work with catapults, but it is highly limited. It needs massive boilers to provide the steam and reliability can be an issue. Also, the speed at which launches can take place (as in how many per hour) is normally less as the boilers are a lot less efficient that producing steam through a nuclear reactor. The Kitty Hawk is an aircraft carrier from a whole different era and the logisitics are completely different. Look at the propulsion mechanism and you'll see the difference.

0 0

Himalayan glaciers actually gaining ice, space scans show

Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@Bob 18.

Yes, not in human history, but we have to get over this idea that humans have to survive. We don't and nature knows it. Do we know if the biosphere can actually support 7billion people at the moment? What about the famines etc. Maybe nature is trying to tell us something. There has to be a limit somewhere and it could be anything, including less than 7billion.

The last time CO2 levels were really high, the Earth was a few degress (on average warmer) and the sun was 10% dimmer. OK. So, what are you going to do when the sub becomes 10% brighter in the future? Go and fix the sun or adapt? I would suggest the former is a little difficult, in which case, it leaves only one option!!

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@NomNomNom.

I simply said that civilisations moved when the climate changed. It wasn't a reference specifically to CO2, but in general for all climate change and indeed geological change. If a volcano starts erupting, do you try to stop it, or simply move the people elsewhere?

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Rate of change is questionable as accurate enough data to identify short term changes cannot be provided by ice cores etc. which identify averages over hundreds or thousands of years. So, rate change is complete unknowable in the past, except the very recent past. You cannot say that because there are no known examples in the past that it cannot therefore have happened when the scientific methods to determine it don't work for the vast majority of earth history. Indeed, the ice cores (one method) only go back a relatively short period of time as the poles have spent more time (geologically speaking) without ice than with!! Our current ice covered poles are actually the exception rather than the norm in that respect. That's why they think there's a lot of oil under the Antarctic......it used to be tropical rainforest!!

Yes, there are 7 billion humans on the planet now and someday someone will have to realise that numbers cannot increase forever. Is the practical limit 14billion, 10billion, maybe 5billion, maybe fewer? We have to accept that population HAS to be limited at some point and that may even be lower than the current number. The cities near the sea can be rebuilt elsewhere. The money being poured one way or another into fighting climate change would easily pay for a few hundred to be moved. Ask China who build cities and move populations all the time.

10,000 years is an irrelevant timescale except to humans. The climate has been stable for periods of a 100,000 years or even millions of years in geological past. Saying that the real big climate changes happened before that rather denies that they're happening now, or is the current one not really big? Climate changes will occur (big and small) as long as the earth exists for a whole load of reasons. The Sun itself will change output continuously over time (and that will affect it) and will ultimately (probably) swell into a red giant and burn the earth to a frazzle. That's a big climate change. Maybe billions of years in the future. The point is, no eco system and no climate ever stands still.

Yes, pre-history was nomadic people and they probably did live through hellish times. What does it tell us? They were able to adapt in various ways to stay alive. They moved, over time their genetic makeup and traits changed etc.etc. That's what it tells us.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Look at history (geological that is)

@tgm

I agree we should all try and reduce our impact on the planet. That can never be a bad thing, but we're going about it in completely the wrong way due to money. Wind farms never will remove our need for fossil fuels. We'd simply need too many and they are too unreliable. Other technologies are far better. Wave and tidal power. Harder to achieve, but far better power output and above all else, reliable. Photovoltaic..........very poor return. Solar furnaces etc........much better returns and more practical. We're currently running headlong towards primarily windfarms, but we'd actually be a lot better off burning fossil fuels for a few more years, perfecting wave and tidal etc. and then getting rid of fossil fuels (for power generation at least), altogether. But the climate change furore causes everything to be done tactically rather than strategically. All wind generated electricity needs another form (normally fossil and nuclear) backing it up. Expensive and very wasteful. Do you know how much electricity was produced by wind farms during the last couple of cold snaps (as in significant snow on the ground over the UK). Bugger all!!

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Here we have

@John Stirling.

I work for a power company in the UK. They are making large amounts of money out of man made global warming (as are most). I don't know specifically about the oil industry (for instance), but the lack of their PR departments going into overdrive suggests they either don't care (and don't see it as an issue) or don't believe there is anything they can do to stop (unlikely with their budgets). So, the former is suggested. I know what's happening in my company and know what's happening in most of the other UK power companies. The tax rises actually provide them with more profit as they are used to subsidise things like wind farms etc. which make huge profits whilst delivering relatively little power and are wholely uneconomic without subsify. So, the companies don't care about the tax rises, as they tend to be the ultimate recipient!!

Yes, I don't have empirical evidence for everyone, or a survey etc. of scientists, but I do have someone who knows from a major UK university (old school university, not new school) and therefore have considerably more knowledge and backing than the completely unbacked assertions made by the person I was responding to. I wasn't trying to be 100% scientific, but simply giving a far more educated angle.

0 1
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: So which is it?

'Cherry picking is a common tactic of denialists.'

Yes, you're right to a point. However, it's also a common tactic of those proposing it as well. Take the University of East Anglia hiding data, ignoring some and emails showing they were carrying out a campaign of ignoring what didn't suit them. All are guilty and nothing in this area is transparent as almost everyone has something to gain from their angle.

2 2
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: So which is it?

'Its a case of who you believe, scientists and journalists or some ex- navy type with opinion bigger than his intellect?'

Name calling and insulting someones intellect (whether true or not in your opinion) is the worst possible way to prove your case.

1 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon
FAIL

Re: @Geoff Cambell So which is it?

@Anigel.

Yep. I totally agree. Journalists are quite often the most ill informed. I've read articles on ships where a picture had been misidentified, when the ships name is clearly visible in the photo!! In one case, they even identified a merchant vessel as a RN warship!!

A journalist is the last person anyone should trust.

0 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Watch the excuses come out

@Jim Birch.

No my sister is not part of the 'Let's Make Up Science Mega Conspiracy'.

She is actually a well respected geneticist (I should refer to her as Dr) and is currently being made redundant due to the research grant for the work running out!! So, I absolutely know what I'm talking about. She'd love another grant as that would keep her salary coming in!!

2 0
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: At least the IPCC ADMITS when it has a problem

I take the point and certainly there are issues with people admitting mistakes when concrete evidence appears. However, this is on both sides. I wouldn't want to say one side is better or worse than the other. For instance. The University of East Anglia went through a process of deliberate concealment and denial of data that suggested the opposite of their view was true. Now, I'm not saying they might not have been the one bad apple, but to say only AGW supporters admit fault and deniers always cover it up is highly disingenuous. Both sides have attempted to maintain positions against new evidence and have even attempted to cover up the evidence.

My position is simple.....it doesn't matter who's causing it. Attempting to keep the climate the same whether the changes are natural or man made is irrelevant. We, as a species, need to simply move with the climate. If we adapt (one of the reasons we became dominant), we'll survive. Otherwise, we'll die. This is all according to Darwin. Survival of the fittest. If we refuse to adapt and cooperate (in say moving people between regions), we'll die out and it will actually prove how right and proper nature is. Arguing who's causing it (when nobody really knows for sure) is pointless.

2 2
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Do we need new scientists?

'@Mad Mike

Unmitigated twaddle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling'

Really? I was not talking about reality, but about what scientists were saying in the 70s. They were predicting an iceage and its in the history books. Read about it. I remember as I was about at the time, so I know it isn't unmitigated twaddle.

1 2
Mad Mike
Reply Icon

Re: Do we need new scientists?

Are you denying that scientists in the 70s predicted an iceage? If so, you need to look at history books. The 99% is simply a reference to someone else quoting 99% as in faviour of man made global warming in this article. There were certainly as many people in favour of an iceage in the 70s as in favour of man made global warming now.

So, nothing being made up here.

1 2

Page: