This Way Up
New tech for russian space programme.
Big Yellow and Black sticker saying "This way up", for when the space monkeys load it into the rocket
290 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Nov 2010
Yes any fool can pass a driving test,
...and many have.
What we need is more traffic officers on the road in marked cars, pulling people over, and writing them up for dangerous driving and driving without due car and attention, failing to keep their car/bike/truck up to spec, etc.
However this is expensive by comparison to sticking up speed camera.
Active enforcement = deterence = compliance. It's simple, but not a vote winner.
Please supply statistical basis or academic research to support this wild assertion.
However the NTSB report is in line with earlier reasearch, for example the 2009 EU Report says 4 times as likely to be involved in an accident (so basically the same risk group as drunk driving)
"Methodologically sound epidemiological research shows that using car phones while driving
increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash resulting in property damage or injury
resulting in hospital attendance by a factor of four. Crash involvement increases with an
increasing amount of in-car telephone use. Heavy users are twice as likely to be involved in a
crash as those making minimal use of mobile phones. Hands-free phones offer no safety
advantage over hand-held units. Gender or age group does not affect the increased
likelihood of a crash while using a mobile phone and driving."
Rest of report can be found at;
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/car_telephone_use_and_road_safety.pdf
Some of us already drive with the phone switched off, and only power it up when at service areas. Whilst I have no problems with risk my life with my stupity, I don't believe I should endanger others just for some minor comviance in contactability.
"The speed limits are there partly to ensure you are going slow enough for that to be true."
No, the speed limits are their to indicate the maximum possible speed at which the road can be considered safe, given a perfect set of conditions.
The appropriate safe driving speed will normally be a number lower than this, for example a 30 MPH speed limit ln a narrow residential street with double parking, and children running around, safe driving speed is closer to 10 mph, using your full attention.
The kididiots that go screaming down country lanes at 60 mph, have a nasty habit of ending up as small meatal balls impaled on the back of the tractor they could not see around the 90 turn. (this is known as driving further than you can see)
due to a lack of traffic patrols, every driver in the UK knows that you are unlikely to get pulled over if you break the RTA or highway code.
therefore, compliance is down to each driver's personal ethics.
unfortunately there are an increasing number of kididiots (the ones with the clown cars, e.g. massive "spoiler" fitted to the back of a front wheel drive small car, etc.), driving like demented chimps on LSD, that have apprently no conception of personal responsibility for their driving behaviour.
If we want safer roads, then we need to have real police officers out on the road patroling in marked cars. this will improve the standard of compliance, hence safety, massively.
the other group that add to the death rate are the OAP's, particularly the ones that refuse to wear their glasses to drive. They can't see the traffic light, hence don't stop. Mandated eye test certificates, to be brought with your mot and insurance for the car tax, would probably save 1 in 4 of the people currently killed on our roads.
"The NHS is announcing new data release services which will help healthcare research industry and academia to develop new products and services. This will aid advances in medical diagnosis and treatment."
It will be interesting to see how they plan to do this, without patient consent, or alternatively ensuring anonominity
I'm sure they'll never screw up, and loose 25m records in the post like HMRC did sending data to the NAO
yes it is a pointless comparison.
Survielance radar system weighing 998kg (e.g. AN/APY-9) fits where on an aircraft with an MTO of 1043kg?
That is before you have to factor in the antenna size, the structural weight to carry that, and the aerodynamics needed to keep aircraft flyable (i.e. big radar, small airframe = no control in real world weather)
yes you could have a UAV radar drone, but it would be roughly the same size as a human operated one, and would therefore have the same take off and landing limits.
the only advantage a UAV radar plane has for naval ops over a human one, is you can let the missile magnet get shot down, and not have to write any letters afterwards.
Does anybody think he even paused to consider that a public sector website has to have maximum accessibility?, that it is NOT acceptable to take the tack of "well it only effects a few people". (which a comercial internet firm can)
Between the very high level of accessibility that a public services website should have, which does not lend it's self to pretty animations, etc., the average public body can not afford to develope and maintain 2 websites (1 plain accessible version, 1 pretty animated version)
When you then add on that due to the number of business functions combined at a public body (over 400 at a unitary authority), the sites are by their nature large and complex (, and if we have spare time, please can we try and manage that down to the minimum required complexity)
Will somebody get these clowns to actually research the subject before making up random statements and policy anoucements.
Call me cynical, but I expect the long term relationship the elected types are intrested in, is with those hiring lobyists and consultants.
The current procurement system disadvantages small operators with innovative products, but the proposals would lead to a market stitched up by the big players.
i.e. if you want some business consultancy, it will go to prize wally and cockup, rather than a small local consulting firm, who might actually do the analisys, rather than repeating the old trite they told the last dozen customers (where it didn't work either).
1200 miles carrying nothing, and walking home
600 miles, carrying next to nothing, with some chance of not walking home (dependant on speed and direction of wind)
no catapult and no runway means even less payload, and less range
Libya had russian ASM's that could be land launched and air launch, with 75mi range, something you need to factor into operational planning, even if they did not get used.
Libyan city of sabha, 610 miles to malta, or 415 miles to tripoli, time over target being, how many seconds if not refueling at the coastline?
The swordfish was designed with 1920's tech and delivered in the mid-30's, in a period of technical change in combat aircraft where last year's design was a coffin with wings.
The achievments of the RN using the swordfish say more about the igenuity of certain commanders, the skill and courage of the crews, the operating environment, and some serious amounts of luck. (such as with the bismark)
To see what we could have had on carriers, one can look at the USN's Dauntless, japan's Nakajima B5N.
the following is the citation for Lieutenant Commander Esmonde's VC
""On 12 February 1942 in the Straits of Dover, off England, Lieutenant Commander Esmonde led his squadron of six Swordfish to the attack of two German battle cruisers the Scharnhorst and the cruiser Prinz Eugen, which were entering the Straits strongly escorted by surface craft. Detached from their escorting fighters (just 10 in number) by enemy fighters, all the aircraft of the squadron were damaged, but even after Lieutenant-Commander Esmonde's plane sustained a direct hit he still continued the run-in towards his target until it burst into flames and crashed into the sea. The squadron went on to launch a gallant attack, but none of the six aircraft returned".
this kind tells you what the swordfish's operational chances where when the other side where prepared, and the sheer guts it took to go anyway.
"Since Great Britain is in effect a giant Aircraft Carrier, I don't understand why the RAF just doesn't get folded into the Royal Navy. "
Given the history of how the sea captain led navy consider air power, the decision in 1918 to create the RAF is why you don't speak german.
If the RN had been in charge we would of have entered WW2 with old out of date biplanes (what was on our carriers at the time?)
Given modern naval warfare, destroyers are targets, carriers are combat vessels, the RN chose to loose the carriers, and keep their career promotion prospects, by keeping more hulls in the form of useless destroyers and frigates, rather than a fewer number of useful carrier hulls.
"We USED to have one designed specifically to take off on short runways, so ideal to operate from that strip in at least the close air support role.."
The harrier, as designed, in the CAS role was suppose to operate forward with the troops, we can't secure forward operating bases, due to lack of relevant troops, and frequently local topography.
The harrier goes slower, so it eventually turns up.
It carries a fraction of the payload, thus the totality of what can be delivered before crawling back to base, is less than any other aircraft we except a Hawk or Tucanno.
The harrier due to limited ordance capacity, therefore can not carry the range of muntion that a larger aircraft can, hence reducing the options available to the troops on the ground.
The harrier has one crew, the tornado has 2 crew, this means the guy on the ground gets to talk to somebody who only has to be concerned with hiting the right target, not overloaded with that and keeping his complex jet in the air, and not in the mountains.
That said the Harrier has it's place in a well rounded air capability, if the government chose to spend the money to maintain that capabiity.
Whilst, in my opinion, Lewis is very good for a defence correspondant, there are times when evidence of the RN intake course brain washing do appear.
There are a number of items in the article, that whilst true, and have been put out of context, and hence do not represent a balance apprasial.
For example the take off conditions apply to all fixed wing operations, from cessna to C-5 Galaxy. The problems become more pronounced at altitude and tempretature, especially in dry cliemts due to changes in air density.
Air Density is also an adverse factor in helo and VTOL ops as well.
Poor air density basically means your aircraft has to go faster and/or carry less in order to generate the required lift (i.e. lift greater than weight)
Given the effeciency of central stores, I expect in 10 years time, they will find enough Harrier parts to build at least ONE whole aircraft.
If truthful, we are likely to say, "here are all the bits we could find"., when we hand them over to USMC.
makes it interesting on whether we will be in breach of contract for that
Last week we had "In the paper Cyber War Will Not Take Place Dr Thomas Rid confidently argues that hacking and computer viruses never actually kill people"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/20/cyber_war_wont_be_real/
Lets see how well that theory holds up, if you have the ability to command a satelite to de-orbit on to the city of your choice. (and yes this would be classed as an act of war if undertaken on behalf of a state against the populace of another state)
So the logical conclusion is the PM's time would be better spent sorting out sex education and the use of contraceptives in family planning, rather than dreaming up censorship systems for those to lazy to supervise their off spring.
Under the proposed scheme, would you need to opt-in to access the various materials on the internet about family planning?
So as the PM has never heard of Net Nanny (which can be easily purchased by those who choose to have children), he wants to implement the nanny state.
So 2 years is a very long time, and a 180 degree turn from his speech in OCT 2009, saying we should not have a nanny state, and we should not treat adults like children.
The next PM then gets to decide what gets blocked (mission creep in government is a given), and sudenly you have to opt-in to reading political statements from those the government does not approve of. (e.g. wikileaks, MP expenses reports, etc.)
This is another example of why the UK needs data breach legislation.
If you have to publically anounce you have been breached, then businesses will find it cheaper to be secure than out of business when everybody stops using their insecure web shop.
We should also have the IT security audits included in the company anual returns, so that the share holders, customers and business partners can see what they are dealing with.
The other thing to note is that Security is only expensive if you do not consider the cost of being insecure (e.g. $2bn at UBS)
It is also not unknown for Police Officers to use thier personal mobile phone to contact their colleagues back at the station, to aviod there radio call being recorded and possible used in evidence at a later date.
Dodgy traders in London wanted IM on their machines, back when the IM's couldn't be logged.
A new law to the effect that if you are carrying out a public or "regulated business" comunication, that it is an offence to use personal communication systems, as you are deliberately evading controls to ensure the lawfulness of your actions.
PS
also says alot about how "transparent" the ministers think our government should be
"Really????? Not that I'm surprised, mind you, but a public apology from Microsoft would still be nice, "
No, better still just send them the bill for fixing it.
If MS had to pay damages for their defects, one of two things would happen
A) Their code would become secure
B) They would be out of business, and replaced by a company offering a secure OS
Software is the only industry where issuing a defective product is considered normal business practice by the major players
If you are a crook and you intend to defraud the tax man, your records are going to be picture perfect....
BOTH OF THEM...
The one that you show the tax man, and the one you actually run your business on.
What wll happen is people that are good at their trade (i.e. a carpenter or plumber), but not good at book keeping, will get harressed, and the crooks will be given a nod and congratualated on how good their record keeping is.
if we employ 1000 tax inspectors chasing 100 companies each (2 days per company), that is 100k companies checked.
If each company owes and imediately pays a mythical £1,000 in tax, that is a maximum possible benefit of £100m.
However 1000 tax inspectors tackling carousel fraud, might make a dent in the £10Bn+ lost each to organised crime, terrorists funding schemes, etc.
This of course forgets the cost to the UK tax payer of all the revenue lost from 1000 man years of businesses not trading, therefore not making a profit, therefore not paying tax.
So trebles all round to the dumb ass minister/civil servant and his dinner party cronies who thought this a good idea after they had consumed several bottles of wine.
"makers claiming that it can shoot down a cricket ball travelling at Mach 3 up to 75 miles away"
only if the cricket ball has a death wish and is flying above the horizon.
pilots without a death wish fly BELOW the horizon, so the first thing a 45 see's is a missle 20 miles out and due for impact in under 120 seconds.
if the other side have any tactical sense, then what the 45 see's is a lot of missles 20 miles out, then even if the computer OS is working the defence system is swamped.
Correct answer, Aircraft carrier with AEW, see low flying aircraft 150 miles away, and task fighter to kill it before it gets to 75 miles.
(oh, that would have required us to spend £3Bn on a combat vessel, rather than 3x£1bn on a carrer oportunity for 3 captains)
"Reapers are the most powerful unmanned combat aircraft available at present, and for most purposes are better than manned strike jets such as the RAF's Tornado. "
Most Purposes presumably means no enemy ECM capability, no real Air Defence capability (and ZSU-23's,etc. don't count), and the UK enjoying Air Supremacy, not just air superioty.
So 3rd world countries look out, here we come.
Drones are usefull tools, but until we have decent AI, they will be dependant on pre-programing or remote control.
This is obviously why all NHS IT jobs state that you must have previous NHS experience.
Lord forbid that they risk actually getting somebody on staff with a track record of successful delivery and operation of mission critical system in geographically dispersed locations, vendor management, testing, etc.
How many NHS medical facilities do you think we have that have two seperate landlines at oposite ends of the building from dfferent suppliers? (*)
(*) as in something better than having all the staff at a hosiptal locked out because THE (as in single) authentication server was offline, and wouldn't be fixed until monday morning (this hospital has a minor injuries unit, plus a neurological ward)
Dyslexi RULES KO!
Burger Flipping as in the only job you are qualified to do if you have;
Art History
English Literature (other than be pedantic at other people typo's)
etc.
PS
go to germany and burger flipping is probably a Phys.Ed or Politics course (which would actually be useful)
easy cheap answer, most of the people in front of the camera and in the management, have Liberal Arts (Burgher Flipping) "degrees", and you would probably have to teach them how to count above 10.
the harder answers are most news "producers" scrapped anything that looked like a real research team, and concentrated on producing pretty animated graphics to entertain the viewer.
With notable exceptions (for example Lewis in the defence articles here), most reporters have never worked close to an area they are providing information or commentary on, and in the era of rolling news, they can't be bothered to go dig up somebody who has.
Bottom line if you want facts, you will need to go digging for them yourself.
Same problem as all the other drone concepts, you can give it a fixed target, and it will still blow it up even if the school bus is parked in front of the AA battery, where as a human would know better.
If you plan on active radio control, you are assuming the other side can't jam you, or take over your own drones and send them back! (remember the US where the people who where broadcasting predator feeds in the clear!, and the highly secure wikileaks proof confidential network!)
Until we get really smart computer systems, I personally believe your better with a mark 1 human in control.
Another example of government by press release, just annouce Sh!t, and don't tell anybody about it before hand.
Oh, well at least their in company with others, such as our chancellor annoucing a tax rate change to be applied within the next 6 hours (1p off fuel duty), and then the public wonder why several thousand retail outlets (petrol stations) couldn't cope.
Just goes to show politicians are the same everywhere.
So the guy get 8 years for stealing intellectual property, no voilence involved, etc.
If he had downed a bottle whiskey, got behind the wheel of car and killed somebody, I bet he would spend less time in jail.
Kind of shows the priorities of the judicial system
Although the president brain took the fall, the US government blew the cover on one of it's own CIA handlers, just because her husband pointed out the falicies in the evidence being collected to go to war in Iraq.
When I hear US politicians and government officials whining about operational security, I tend to think about pot and kettles, along with piss ups and breweries.(*)
(*) if this information was so sensitive, why had they not implemented proper security controls?
Which is usually sold to the highest bider
Guess we now know where the $1Bn (USD) for the relection campaign is coming from!
For further details see how the US politicians blocked recomended improvements to airport security measures being introduced prior to 9/11, because the airline whined to their bought and paid for sentators and congressmen.
GCHQ is a government body paid for by UK tax payers
Using GCHQ staff to protect big UK companies, is effectively tax subsidies to UK big business (oh dear >BUZZ< violated EU and WTO regs)
If only certain big companies can get this protection, then this putting the other UK and EU businesses at a competative disadvantage (oh dear >BUZZ< violated EU regs)
For further details tax subsidies and WTO, look up the usual Boeing Airbus mud slinging contests.
please can we have one government a century that doesn't try to operate by press release, and does actually come up with thought through coherent and legal plans and legislation.
"In one case an examiner took pieces from five separate disciplines in five distant classes to make his argument. In the latter case the people actually paid to come up with new solutions had tried for 28 years before I showed up with the solution set."
could this be the exception that proves the rule?, or is it that the US patent office just rubber stamp anything from large companies with large legal teams and a history of litigation?
"The firm said it had moved key systems to Dublin and Gibraltar in recent months and opened new offices in both places, which together employ about 120 people."
Hence 120 jobs that would have been in the UK, if they had not decided to move systems out of the UK.
Given the investment choice, the company decided for whatever reason invest in place other than the UK. (maybe HMG should be looking at why this happened, and do something to prevent repition)
Given RIPA, the terrorism act(S), etc.
My personal view is that we need to scrap all existing surveilance legislation and write a single coherent piece of legislation that actually balances crime detection against unwarranted intrusion in to a person's life.
As a fundemental premise I would suggest that all directed surveilance should be reviewed and authorised by an independant judicary, rather than allowing enforcement officers to give themselve the powers to rubber stamp their own survielance ops.
This judicial oversight, would cut back on the over zealous as well corrupt practices of individuals within law enforcement agencies. (it would also probably save money by stopping expensive fishing expeditions)
So if the value of your house has gone down overnight as a result of grossly inaccurate data on this web site, who is going to pay the liability bill?
From what has been reported, no attempts where made before publishing this data to ascertain the accuracy, despite the impact it may have on comunities and individuals.
Would be interesting to see the project's risk register, to see how much thinking they had done before publishing.
It's not really an issue if we are not going to have pilots to fly them,
having got rid of 40% of our pilot intake (not the MoD leaked early 25%, and hope nobody spots it when the real numbers come out rouse), it will take around 7 years to generate new combat ready fast jet pilots.
We could just have bought F-18's as a cheaper paper weight though!