Posts by Mad Mike 1379 publicly visible posts • joined 30 May 2007
History shows not. In the 70s, 99% of scientists reckoned we were entering an ice age!!
Truth is, nobody knows, least of all scientists. The atmosphere, climate and geology are so complicated that we're only scratching the surface and don't really have a clue. Scientists reckon they know the answers, but ask them for a weather forecast for tomorrow and the real head scratching can begin.
'There has never been this high level of CO2 in the atmosphere in the history of human evolution.'
Unscientific and irrelevant. Human history is a tiny proportion of the history of this planet and hardly geologic time.
I'm not really sure why you're asking for peer reviewed scientific papers as you haven't supplied any to date either!! You seem to expect others to provide a higher level of proof than you're willing to provide yourself!!
Try looking here:-
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/temperature-and-co2-concentration-in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years_25ae
This shows temperatures and CO2 concentrations over a few hundred thousand years from the Vostok ice core. It shows a -9 to +4 (approx) change from current for the extremes. It also shows that more recently, the temperature isn't peaking as previous spikes would suggest.
However, as I said in all this, humans simply need to use their ability to adapt. By the way, which CO2 and temperature change are you referring to that wiped out 90% of all life on earth?
Peer-reviewed scientific papers only now please.
The reference for the position is the emails etc. from the University of East Anglia. There's a source for you. Effectively, they show they refused to release data to outside scrutiny and admitted playing down other interpretations etc. to further their case. Guess where a load of grant money went!!
As I explained earlier, without grant money, the scientists are made redundant and therefore no grant, no personal salary. My sisters been there and done it. You can print figures like $27trillion all you like, but where's your reference for that? Where's your reference to $420billion subsidy? An interesting take on the word subsidy?
The reality is, the fossil fuel companies actually like climate changes. It's good for them. No technologies being proposed so far are going to reduce consumption in the slightest and the constantly increasing taxation (caused by the climate change furore) hides their profits etc. and makes them less of a target. You may notice that none of them are particularly fighting the climate changes agenda with their PR departments. If anything that could possibly work well and threaten their market comes up, they simply buy it and then leave it to rot or make it into another profit stream. Simple. They don't loose out of any of this.
'They don't get a penny of the fabled grant money themselves - that goes towards buying sattelites and radio sondes etc.'
I'm reliably informed by my sister that in the area of genetic research (and she tells me scientific research in general), this is not true and that without grants, her salary disappears rather quickly. The grant goes to the university normally and through them to her salary...not direct.
As I said in another post, people just need to go with climate change and stop fighting it all the time. We can learn a lot from the past, including this. One of the things that made humans so successful is our ability to change and adapt.
@Leslie Graham.
Well, my sister is a scientist (not anything to do with climate change) and she gets a salary, but the money for the salary comes from a grant and therefore she is effectively paid by grant. Every so often, lots of ideas go for grant money and if successful, the salary keeps getting paid. If none of the grant applications are successful, she is made redundant...
So, although technically she is paid a salary, without the grant, the salary disappears too. So, the grant is rather important to continued employment, hence my comment.
That's the problem......money talks. For scientists, journalists etc.etc. You'll never get an unbiased view as each is looking after the next paycheck. They also (including scientists) use very bad and simplistic science to make their viewpoint. Glaciers shrinking must mean increasing temperatures is a common one. Whether glaciers increase, decrease or stay the same is a lot more complicated than simply air temperature.
In all this, you simply have to look at history. Areas of the world change over geologic time and have done forever. There have been both warmer and colder times (whether global or local). There have been times with more rain and less rain. There has been more CO2 in the air and less etc.etc. What we're seeing here has all happened before and will happen again in the future. Climate change (in general) is perfectly normal and part of the natural cycle for the Earth as has been shown for millions of years. Nothing to see here.
Used to be that civilisations knew this and simply adapted. Water levels rise a bit, move inland some (hence evidence of civilisations found underwater). Rain levels go down and land becomes desert.......move. etc.etc.etc.
Now, two things have happened. Firstly, people no longer want to adapt and want everything to stay the same. Well, stop living in a fantasy land and get real. We're just beginning to understand it in this country. They've stopped trying to defend all the tiny bits of land threatened by the sea and are instead moving people. Not a lot, but in a few areas. You can try and fight nature, but you'll never succeed. So, people have to simply realise they need to adapt and move etc.
Secondly, politicians have become involved. A politicians fundamental job in this country is to control people and take as much money from taxpayers as possible and spend it as they will. Every scientific scare story in history has been used by them to justify tax rises and changes etc. Lead in petrol, remove it. Unfortunately, unleaded has more benzene. Lead will reduce your intelligence over a long period. Benzene just gives you cancer!! That was a result.....not.
Climate change.......just blame humans. Then, a whole raft of ideas and taxes become available. Any fuel that is burnt is the work of the devil and must be taxed to the hilt. Smart meters will no proven point are foisted on everyone. Each has a big kill switch......control. CFL lighting, which is horrible, is forced upon everyone. Climate change is used to justify so many controls and taxes it defies belief. Yet, we could simply change with it.
Now sit back and watch the excuses come pouring out from the scientists who live on global warming research grants................................
Scientists shouldn't be paid by grant. Grants cause the science to become secondary to ensuring the grant continues. Better to pay them a salary irrespective of their findings and get some real science.
An interesting idea, but sometimes speed matters in short bursts. When I said your average speed, I didn't mean average of all the month, but average when using the internet and therefore the speed would give a similar answer to your calculation. There are two important issues with a link and they are speed and caps. I get really hacked off with my speed being below that possible (and stated) during the day simply due to the contention ratios of the links.
The issue here isn't really about the economics or anything like that. It's basically about truthful marketing. ISPs are allowed to advertise 'up to' figures and then supply, essentially anything. Whether this is their fault or not and whatever the economics, that's fundamentally misrepresentation. If someone advertises a 10Mb/s link, it should have that speed at all times until you hit the cap. Then, it could be limited according to the conditions of the cap. However, my link never hits the quoted speeds during the day even before it's hit the cap, and I'm on fibre!!
So, when changing, the ISP should quote what you WILL get and the fee. Then, you can take your pick knowing what you'll get in exchange for your money. At the moment, you don't know. Claiming ADSL2+ will give 24Mb/s is dishonest in the extreme as this is only possible under ideal conditions and if you pretty much live in the exchange. We need to move away from headline speeds and onto speeds for your link.
The issue here is largely a town v countryside argument, although I appreciate there are a significant number of exceptions. Why should there be any cross-subsidy applying here anyway. If you live in a town, that's your choice and you get things like fast broadband, relatively better public transport etc.etc and on the downside, more noise, probably worse air, less picturesque etc.etc. If you choose to live in the country, you get approximately the reverse. Why should townies subsidise the country dwellers and vice versa. At the moment, those in the countryside seem to get a much better deal with their broadband being subsidised and the government even talking about some sort of petrol/diesel subsidy because they have to drive further. That's their choice!!
I guess the reason is because most of the politicians live in country piles and want all the benefits and none of the downsides. Their supporters generally live in similar mansions as well.
Surely this should apply all the time. In other words, if the ISP wants it's full fee, you should get the full bandwidth they quote (up to) at all times? Even before the caps kick in, I rarely get the full rate specified by my ISP during the day. That's only available overnight normally. Perhaps they should keep stats on your link and if on average you get 2.5Mb/sec on a 20Mb/sec sevice, they should only get an an eighth of the fee?
@AC. I thought it was fairly obvious the comments should not be taken literally. I also put 'police' and 'stasi' within quotes, hence indicating I didn't expect them to be taken as literal. Whilst your comment is quite correct, nowhere in my posting does it indicate the Stasi were part of the police. Just because I said the police would perform a raid on behalf of the Stasi doesn't indicate this. Indeed, in this country, the police have often performed raids (anti-terrorist etc.) on behalf of MI5 or using information provided by MI5.
Another pointless and impractical judgement from a court, this time German. How can a hosting site reasonably work out if your file breaches copyright. Even if the file is in the clear and not protected somehow, you could be within your rights to publish and another person publishing the same might not be. How can they possibly know to take one down and leave the other?
From a simple logic point of view, it fails. From a simple to get round (e.g. encryption etc.) point of view, even easier to make impossible. From a legal point of view, quite at odds with the ECJ, which Germany is supposed to honour.
Barking mad. Absolutely barking.
Surprised the judge didn't go further and suggest the sites should pass a copy (with identification data) onto some central authority (why not call it 'The Stasi'). Then, they can send round the stormtroopers (sorry 'police') and raid everyone all the time.
This is a real shot in the foot. What promotes a film and its merchandise better than having some free advertising and that's exactly what the pubs/restuarants etc.etc. are doing. Unless the filmakers want to now branch out into the licensed trade, what difference does it make to them? They either gain nothing by enforcing the copyright or gain a (relatively) small amount of money. In return, they get loads of bad publicity making them look like money grabbing wankers again. Result, net loss, as the film just gets pirated more alongside everything else. Alternatively, they leave well alone. Result, no immediate gain, but everyone who sees/hears of it is reminded of the films and quite a lot probably go and see them.
As to the name Hobbit. There is evidence that it was around in the 19th centuary, long before Tolkien supposedly 'created' it. Also, Hobbits have appeared in several other non-Tolkien works over the years and none (to my knowledge) have been sued for copyright. The whole notion of being able to copyright a single word is stupid anyway.
"And if he spends 30 years in prison for what he "made of his life", what would your opinion be then?
Lots of posters here don't seem to understand that the real problem he faces is the money-laundering charges: he can be put away for decades on that, even if the money was legitimately and legally earned. Those charges stand by themselves. And if he's not terrified, then he is even more stupid than he seems."
Errrr. Call me confused, but money laundering is the process of concealing illegally obtained money or money obtained through crime. So, if the money has been legitimately or legally earned, how can you be guilty of money laundering? Or, is this another case of idiot Americans not knowing how to speak english, spell english, or even have the same meaning on words and phrases?
@Ken Hagan
"Re: your meter is going to be replaced within the next 10-15 years anyway
Where do you get this figure from? I've never lived in a house where the meter was changed as part of any schedule and there's a guy posting at the bottom of this page whose electrics hadn't been touched since the 1950s."
All meters have a certification date. They *shouldn't* be left in place beyond this. The duration varies according to the meter, but is normally between 10 and 20 years. I've had a meter changed (gas in my case) due to this, but it is not uncommon for them not to get changed. In theory, if they aren't and are beyond their certification date, you could refuse to pay the bill. The reason for this, is that the certification date is how long the meter is expected to remain accurate. Beyond this date, accuracy is considered dubious. Therefore, who knows what you should be paying!!
Of course, meters are generally very accurate for long periods of time and this is more of a procedural thing than a likelihood of meter inaccuracies, but that's the rules. If you've had one in place since the 50's and it's never been changed, you really could try and refuse to pay the bills as your meter could be inaccurate and must be beyond it's certification date by now. Some companies put a sticker on the meter with the date. Others, just hold the data centrally and don't make it available. Phone them and ask for the date!!
'I do.
But I do not for one moment believe that anyone *will* make one.
Vic.'
Unfortunately, even in an ideal world, the working parameters required in a smart meter make security pretty impossible, even without allowing for whether people *will* make a secure one. You have to remember that these things have to sit on a wall for at least 10 years with no hardware changes. Any encryption implemented today, with any improvements allowed by the hardware limitations, will almost certainly take only a few hours (at worst) to crack in 10 years time with the hardware available then in the home. In reality, the meters could well be installed for much longer. As the meter effectively becomes a small computer, you have to consider what security on say a Pentium 1 was like against the hardware available today.
@AC. Interesting viewpoint. However, I doubt it.....at least, not unless the government is monumentally stupid. The same is going on with water supply. The reason we are short, is that water companies wanted to build more storage and were stopped by the government. Water companies loved the idea as its a great capital investment. We're now short of water. Companies would quite happily built loads of coal or whatever power stations, but were effectively stopped by the government through emissions targets etc. We're now short again. If water or power (both gas and electricity) start getting serious rationed like a third world country, the government had better be ready for widespread rationing.
This isn't like the water shortages in the 70s when it was unexpected and largely for a single year. Governments have known about this for years and have even been telling people they've known for years. People are getting more militant and if any government thinks they will be able to turn off peoples power or have widespread standpipes without some serious rioting etc., they are really dumb. Especially after they've said it's coming for years and carried on with the same stupid policies.
Come rationing (widespread), come some serious public order issues and the government will start falling.
'Err...
They won't pay, the company will. Ok, so the company will fund it from customer income, but your meter is going to be replaced within the next 10-15 years anyway.'
You are quite right, there is a cycling of meters for certification etc. However, a standard meter costs a tiny fraction of a smart meter, let along all the back end systems required to run the smart meters. Standard meters cost a few pounds (yes literally), whilst smart meters cost hundreds. Then, you've got the billions for the back end systems that are smart meter specific.
'@Dr Xym
I'd give up if I were you, this is another commentard conspiracy, no matter how sensible your arguments you'll be shouted down.'
What's wrong with people pointing out that it will cost a fortune and give almost no return?
The cost is currently £12billion and is rising all the time. The government paper that suggests a £18billion payback is pure fantasy. I've read it and am involved in smart metering. The payback simply won't occur at anything like that rate. I'd be amazed if it is even 1% of that. For instance, one of the base assumptions is that electricity consumption will fall by 25% after smart metering is implemented. Doesn't say how. Doesn't say where the figures come from. Pure fantasy. The majority of electricity consumption is actually non-negotiable and cannot be removed by the consumer or shifted to other times of day. You want a cup of tea when you want a cup of tea, not when your electricity company says you can. Some things like washing machines, tumble driers and dishwashers could be moved to other times (overnight for instance), but there are even issues there. How do you move the clothes from washing machine to tumble drier at 3am? You don't want a combined machine as they are significantly lower performance and less efficient.
@Dr.Xym.
The point is it's due to cost £12billion and what is the benefit. Certainly nothing to the end user and nothing like this amount to the various companies and organisations that make up the energy sector. The markets are extremely complicated with generators, suppliers, distributors, meter operators, meter owners etc.etc. It's not as simple as a single company.
The point is, there's almost no benefit for a hell of an outlay.
All the consumption data has been deemed personal data by the dpa. If you really believe anyone can make a secure meter that is also capable of being firmware updated remotely etc.etc. whilst being on a customers all, you are wrong. The meter companies are working on this and nobody has a real solution that would survive a reasonable attack and several meter networks around the world have already been compromised. That's known.
And why will people attack the meter networks? It won't be for the data. That's relatively worthless unless you're a supplier. However, being able to cause mayhem and disruption will be a major factor in drawing both government agencies (China for instance) and hackers in general to them.
Dr Xym. Smart metering is a waste of time. It saves the company money because they don't have to read the meter, but that's all. They can already get then householder to send the readings in. A visit will still be required once in a while anyway, as safety is part of the readers job. To check the meter and associated kit for safety and avoidance mechanism. So, that won't change. This is certainly not worth £12billion+.
The distribution companies can model demand over time by simply monitoring the feeds out from the substation. A lot simpler and easier. Modelling at individual houses doesn't give any additional information than monitoring the loop cable as comes from the substation. The consumer can already monitor his usage using various attachable meters, which they can do themselves for a fraction of the price. Pick one up for £30 from Tescos. You can even store the profile and look at it on a computer in nice graphs etc.
Mind you, if a householder can't work out what's taking the power etc. themselves, they really need help. if the lights on, it's using the power as specified on the bulb etc. Hardly difficult. A simply plug in meter tells them what each appliance is using if they're really interested. Of course, most people aren't and most electricity use is not optional.
Smart metering is pointless rubbish, especially at this point in time.
People here are making a great deal of assumptions. The police have arrested a lot of people claiming them to be big time hackers of one sort or another. What's happened? Have the attacks and disclosures stopped? No. So, either there are a lot more people out there willing to do this, or they haven't actually got the hackers. After all, if you're a small time hacker and get arrested, might you not claim to be something bigger and try to get a deal where one was not available before?
I have no idea if these people are who they claim them to be, but I wouldn't trust the authorities here more than the Syrian regime. They're playing their own game for their own reasons and disinformation is part and parcel of that.
The issue here is the viability of electric cars. With the price of petrol climbing all the time, they look more and more viable. However, there are several drawbacks. Firstly, the UK power grid is simply not designed to charge large quantities of electric cars overnight. In many areas, the power requirement would overwhelm available capacity. Secondly, as the price of oil increase (and thus petrol), so does the price of electricity. The Gas and Oil prices tend to be linked and a lot of electricity production is now gas. Wind etc. are heavily subsidised, so where is the cheap electricity coming from? As more and more electric cars come about, the price of electricity will rise as we simply don't have enough generating capacity.
It's incredible really how history comes around. The USofA have spent huge amounts of money and laid down millions of lives fighting for freedom around the world and yet the USof A ends up just like them. Arbritary decisions, laid down by owned laymakers, enforced by owned judiciary. Did the west really beat Nazi Germany? Arguably, the USofA is doing many of the same things. Sames goes for the Soviet Union, North Korea, China etc.etc.
It comes to something when you look at these countries/entities and lament how free they were/are compared to the USofA.
There must be a lot of people turning in their graves now.
"He looks very much to be a prime example of someone who is totally out for himself."
Doesn't that make him perfect material for being a MP? With a few exceptions, they're all back stabbers doing anything to enhance their careers, keep themselves in power etc. He's exactly the same as all the rest, just somewhat less subtle. He punches rather than using his powers behind the scenes to ruin the persons life.
I can only assume you are employed by one of the music companies, or more likely one of the enforcement companies they've setup. Evidence........you have no idea of the legal definition of theft; have no idea of the customer; have no evidence to back your argument (re job losses etc.) and insult everyone all the time.
In fact, the evidence is all around that this sort of copyright violation doesn't really do any harm, especially to artists. Adele (for instance) is a very recent artist who has not had long to harvest money and yet is reportedly (new house in Sussex etc.) doing very well thank you very much. I don't really notice loads more poor bands and artists than say during the 70s and I don't really notice any lack of very rich artsists either. The balance seems much the same as during the 70s and 80s, hence it doesn't really seem to have affected anything.
To a point, I don't disagree, but there has to be a limit on what is acceptable and the question is, where's that line. Some will find almost anything acceptable, others have a very moral and righteous perspective. You could say funeral directors are making a profit out of a dead person.........
I guess it depends a bit on how obviously it's done. Because this was highly obvious and done by a company that's already hated, it's got a certain response. The equivalent would be a funeral director talking to you about your dead relative and then saying the price in the brochure has gone up by 20% because it's your mum etc.
Sony have a proven history of being morally bankrupt in just about every way, treating their customers like dirt and generally doing anything for money. This is just another potential example. To all of those saying this was automatic, I don't believe it. They knew what they were doing and their statement actually supports that. If it were an automated process, they would have said so in their statement as this is far more justifiable and defencible than what they actually said. They would have said, 'An automated process mistakenly adjusted the price. We've now corrected that and refunded the difference for anybody who purchased it at the wrong price'.
That would have been great PR for Sony and would have shown an entirely different face. Their failure to take the obvious and defencible position very strongly suggests automation wasn't involved.
There has to be some sort of morality brought back into business, as otherwise, things will just continue to get worse and worse in the rampant drive towards profit. Yes, make a profit, but a sensible and reasonable one within reasonable moral grounds. If energy companies are making huge profits (and they are!!) out of gas and electricity, are they not at least a little culpable for the poor pensioners freezing to death for lack of money to pay for it? There has to be a moral compass somewhere.
Errr. I think you got your sums wrong. I think the second one should have been (£10-£4)*0=£0.
It really a depends on whether we're talking about something physical or digital and the numbers involved. If it's physical, the problem gets a lot worse as production costs are normally only sensible if a certain minimum number are produced. Basically, it's a lot more complex than the originally quoted idea of maximise income about profit, which was specified.
In the car industry, the value of components has nothing to do with the actual production cost of the component. If it's a part for a new model, the price is high regardless. People have a lot of money invested in their car and want to get it working again, therefore are willing to pay a relatively high price to repair them. Once the car gets older, it's value plummets and the price of component does as well. Simply because if the car is only worth £500, you can't charge £200 for say an exhaust (to use one common example). People simply won't pay it, will scrap the car, and buy another one for £500.
It's industry specific and far more complicated than just ship the largest value amount of product possible.
Shakje. You seem to miss a very important part of making money. Your logic works fine to a point, but the price still has to be high enough to make a profit and the totality of the profit needs to make sense.
So, if the production cost is say £4.
(£10-£4)*5=£30
(£5-£4)*20=£20
At this point, your theory breaks down depending on what the company is striving to achieve. If they're looking for profit, your argument fails. If they're looking for turnover, it works. Most companies prefer profit, therefore it's not generating money that matters, but generating profit.
Well, I don't know. I know a copy of the displayed page is within the BBC article and some statements purportedly from SOCA seem to back it up. Therefore, assuming the BBC is not lying in their article, it seems to be a SOCA page. The page itself is extremely threatening as well. I'd like to believe it isn't SOCA, but knowing some coppers, I suspect it is.
Nobody is saying the pursuit of profit is sinful. People are simply saying there are ethical limits. It's nothing to do with christianity or any other religion. It's to do with people believing right and wrong and people are simply saying that making money out of someone dying is unethical in their eyes.
It's about making a profit within reasonable ethics. The laws of a country are based on ethics of a reasonable majority and how people want society to work (or at least they used to be). That's why murder is illegal; for ethical reasons. So, people are suggesting that this sort of profiteering under these circumstances are unethical and shouldn't happen either. This is especially true of an organisation that seeks to preach to others around the ethics of copyright violation, which then does this!!
I agree this is not the most major of issues and there are far worse, such as rootkits and loosing loads of personal data. However, they all go to show a corporate attitude, morality and general business ethos. The more we highlight that, the better. Believe me, I have been very vocal around the other two subjects as well. Nobody has ever said Sony should be a non-profit organisation, just that the current notion that profit is everything needs to be challenged (across all companies) and replaced with one of reasonable profits, within reasonable moral bounds. It also helps show the hypocracy in the law when Sony act all pious and holier than though about the morality of copyright theft and then do this (and worse).
Indeed they did. The thing I find odd is that the notice displayed says the owners of the site were arrested for fraud and that they 'stole' the music. There can only be one of two explanations. Either, SOCA displayed what the media industry told them to, or SOCA have as little knowledge of the law as the media companies. Copyright infringement is not fraud, or theft. WTF.
Doesn't exactly help with plods public image. They look dumber by the day.
What else did people think would happen? This is hardly the first time. I've found the price of music for the recently deceased often gets increased. It's endemic in the industry and not just Sony. To these immoral people, a death is simply good advertising and an opportunity to make more money.
And they wonder why people hate them.............................
It's not like surgeries haven't thrown people off their books for spurious reasons is it? I've heard of several stories where surgeries have thrown people out for making what seems like perfectly reasonable requests. I've also heard of surgeries doing the same with people whose medical needs are 'too high'. Given the above (maybe from a very small number), are they really surprised when people to refuse to put a name to the comment?
Some surgeries have already shown patients what retribution looks like, so maybe they don't want to experience it a second time?
Do we know the truth yet? There are only a few people who have any idea of the truth. You seem to be judging him guilty before he's been tried in a court and PROVEN guilty. If you look at the circumstances of what's happened and the order it's happened in etc.etc., it does look very dubious. Now, that might be just coincidental, but he is as entitled to take all this through the judicial system as anyone else, even you. Just hope you don't stand accused of something and want to exact your rights. We'll remind you of your comment.
TPB were doing nothing that google isn't doing. They didn't host anything, they merely indexed. The verdict effectively makes Google guilty as well. They index more pirate material than TPB ever did. Course, they are 'innocent' as they own enough politicians and are (to coin a recently used term) 'too big to prosecute'.
The most stupid thing about this is, everyone can have a display of their consumption in their houses for about £30 or less. DIY job. No need to change the meter. Plenty of energy companies already give them away for free!! So, what does a smart meter add? If they want accurate meter readings, they could either a) actually do their jobs and read meters or b) give the customer a discount to read and telephone/mail/email/web site their readings!! Simples really.
An interesting question here, is what happens if they are found not guilty? Their business has effectively been destroyed on the basis of a legitimate investigation, but the actions of the authorities has directly caused the destruction of the business due to freezing accounts, which were used to pay bills. If found not guilty, who's responsible? Of course, the chances of this are slim, as the US have no intention of finding them innocent. Surely, till the investigation is complete and the trial has been completed and they've been proven guilty, shouldn't the accounts be allowed to continue paying bills? After all, the seizure of the money is only legally right if they are found guilty?
There's two principle reasons why your almost totally wrong.
1 - Your making a wild, sweeping generalisation about older people wanting to move less and not keeping up with technology. Plenty of older people do keep up with technology and will move, and I've known plenty of younger people who won't. There might be some degree of age determination of it, but it isn't as great as people think.
2 - This doesn't just apply in techy jobs and even applies in non-techy, where no particular skills are required. It is actually because of employers misconceptions about how age affects a person and how they work. It's the same reason that older people tend to be the first hit by compulsory redundancy. Younger people are considered more dynamic, more hungry for success etc. Crude generalisations like yours and these are what causes so much pair to older people. More intelligent managers and companies judge each candidate individually and also take into account factors such as older people are less likely to lie/ham up their CV.
Maybe someone would have to be dumb to operate a website containing pirated content, but then you'd have to be pretty dumb not to read the article first and realise he didn't!! He posted links to pirated content. So, he's done nothing that google hasn't done. Get it now?
Epic fail.......just epic.
Hello. Hello. This is planet earth. If you really believe the absence of a direct means of doing it (i.e. an order etc.) affects his ability to influence, you really are living on another planet. The president controls who gets a lot of the positions that affect this and therefore effectively owns the people. They mess him around, they might not be in employment for long.
The PM and president have the same sorts of powers, it's just whether one is direct or indirect. Strangely enough, in the UK, the PM also can't necessarily just order something and it happens. In some areas yes, in other areas no. However, he does appoint people to roles and therefore gets some control that way. It's called politics and is not really that different between the two countries.
'to highs not seen for 15 million years'
That period of time in the history of the earth is meaningless. I totally agree that we should attempt to understand what the increases in CO2 are doing, but levels have been substantially higher before and it didn't doom the entire planet. 15 million years is but a second in the timeline of the earth.
"Assuming he'd checked up before paying his money in, he would have effectively seen a legitimate guarantee insuring his deposits against loss, at least up to a certain level, and might even had some expectation the government might help even beyond that level.
Which means he doesn't actually have to /care/ about their business model, or how well the FSA might be supervising them, or anything like that."
Sorry David, but no. Whilst he has a guarantee, that guarantee is only valid to the level of its assets. The losses were at such a level, the guarantee by itself would have fallen and people wouldn't have got their full entitlement. The same applies to insurance companies. Effectively, the guarantee scheme is insurance. If an insurance company receives claims beyond it's means, they get anything from nothing to a percentage depending.
"Not for someone who had actually checked them out to see they were covered and who was only storing reasonable amounts of their own money there."
No, he's checked them out and accepted a guarantee that looks good, but there are circumstances that could occur (such as did), that the guarantee could never cover. Therefore, the guarantee mitigates the risk to a point, but not entirely. The banking crisis was of such a magnitude that unless governments stepped in, all guarantees were effectively null and void.
"Well, deposits up to a decent level were automatically covered, so no individual would have lost the lot, and most people would have been fully covered.
Someone with an account below the compensation limit could have invested their money quite safely, as long as the bank was a UK one, covered by the scheme."
I suspect this was a major reason why they bailed the banks out. The financial compensation scheme simply couldn't have covered the losses that would have occured and the compensation claims, so either it would have fallen (which would have been a disaster for the industry), or the government would have had to step in. So, don't think the compensation scheme protected anyone from these banks failing......it simply doesn't have the assets available.
"Is downloading a criminal offence in the USA or is it the uploading (including making stuff available P2P) that is potentially criminal, similar to what (I think) is the UK situation?"
I was not talking about allowing people to download copyright violating material. I said they could either filter the material, or more likely, simply log who downloads what. Then, when the copyright violating files are identified, the people can be prosecuted for downloading. In the UK, both uploaders and downloaders are potentially liable to prosecution, although it tends to be uploaders that are chased as they make the material available and are generally easier to find.
"Have they actually taken an option yet?"
Agreed, they have not. But, given that the US have taken the nuclear option so many times in their history (and are now reaping the benefits), I think it likely.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
