I think you mean "a lot more mindless punk rock by kids who can't play the guitar."
Yes, and here in the UK there would be a lot more mindless"garage", techno, handbag, "R'N'B", ragga, "jungle", "drum'n'bass" by kids who have never picked up a guitar or any other musical instrument other than drum machines, sampling keyboards and PCs with sequencing software producing a deluge of incomprehensible and offensive nonsense that goes "Me undapant is an fiya, give me 200 quid", "check out ma maladie, check out ma maladie", "I got a AK and is goin to put a cap in yo ass", "I wanna sex you up", "I've gotta little somethin' for ya" (yuck) etc.
Now, don't get me started on the Darkness. The cheesiest, most un-original, derivative, talentless and feeble rock band to hit the big time since the Quireboys.
You particle accelerator boys had better get your nuclear fusion going soon,
Stupid me. I meant research. I know that fusion is done with inertial confinement and tokamaks, not particle accelerators. I was trying to be mildly insulting.
Confrontational behavior and calling opponents of nuclear power names is not going to help the situation.
I didn't call anyone names.
You are not going to find many politicians of either party willing to stick their neck out for the nuclear lobby.
We have several political parties in this country. But, yes, no one is going to stick their neck out yet. I intend to help change that. A lot has progressed in the last 20 years, politically, scientifically and economically. There is a lot of ignorance and superstition of nuclear power in society. That needs to change. You yourself, a highly intelligent and educated person if what you claim is true, are not just skeptical but hostile to the nuclear industry. I have worked in it. Past mistakes aside, nuclear power has so much good to offer us. However ignorance, fear and superstition amongs the public has all but killed it off. It's far too good an opportunity to waste.
Just as you can not blame this generation for the Crusades or slavery, you can not blame the current generation of scientists and engineers for the folly of the past in the nuclear industry. They must be allowed to get on with their work, if only to clean up the mess left by their grandfathers. The irrational rantings of the "environmantal" pressure groups, sensationalism of the press and weak will of the politicians do nothing but instill fear and loathing in the public and hinder progress.
If only the message could be got across effectively about the progress made and the great benefit peaceful nuclear power has to offer, the world could be a cleaner, greener, more productive place.
People who bandy about great qualifications, hints of associations with the famous but have little experience and direct knowledge of the modern industry should hold their tongues, and do some research. This is 2003, not 1973.
I left the nuclear industry because it had been all but ruined by the ignorant, greedy and selfish. We were supposed to be heartened that the UK government might consider building new nuclear genearting capacity in 50 years time. Even to someone in their mid 20's, sitting around counting fuel elements out of decomissioning old reactors and demolishing them for the rest of their careers is not an attractive proposition.
So, you've almost got your wish. The mistakes of the past, coupled with short-termist economics, weak-willed poiliticians, ignorant "environmentalists", sensationalist press, and public fear have all but killed the British nuclear industry. However, the waste still needs to be dealt with, so I'm afraid your much-loathed Sellafield will not be going away any time soon. Or perhaps like the Greepeace, Friends of the Earth and Green Party fools, you'd just like to leave the waste lying around at decomissioning generating sites?
You particle accelerator boys had better get your nuclear fusion going soon, or the lights will be going out, and the French will be getting very rich.
It is rather strange that someone who refuses to actually answer any of the questions put to him should think he has the right to interrogate so.
You're the one making the grand claims of PhDs, Nobel Prize professors, particle accelerators (and some tenuous links to civillain nuclear power). Now you are going on to claim that The then chair of the electricity industry, Lord Marshall lied to me in person when he claimed that the nuclear power plants were cheaper to run. That statement was untrue, a fact that has since been acknowledged to me, again in person by a senior cabinet minister in Thatcher's government.
The nuclear industry in the UK has a long and very political history. I've heard many things frmo many people, many with PhDs, many with 40 years experience in the nuclear industry in reactor design, reactor physics, health physics - you name it. I've heard things from "mad environmentalists" who warned me I was going to die of cancer as they puffed on their filterless roll-up cigarrettes, and now I hear more unsibstantiated FUD frmo a slashdot troll.
Thatcher's government did many a suspect thing, many an unwise thing and many a short-term thing in their rule. Screwing up the nuclear industry was one such thing. They plundered its decomissioning cash to pay for their privatisation schemes.
As for the lies of the nuclear industry, you simply do not build any kind of dangerous plant at Three Mile Island if safety is your first concern
The PWR isn't an ideal design, and especially not when coupled with the low safety standards used at the time in the USA. Compare the PWR at TMI with Sizewell B.
The economics of the Electricity Supply Industry of the UK have changed dramatically in the last decade. The market has been rigged to favour the burning of gas at the expense of all other power sources. As such, the nuclear industry (Magnox, AGR and PWR) have all found themselves in a procarious financial situation. It is now not possible to invest in power generation in the UK because electricity prices are too low. This is good for the consumer (and wins votes) in the short term. Give it another 5 years or so and we'll see.
What did you do your PhD in? Who are these professors? Which universities? Which labs? What simulation software do you use? Perhaps you could explain how the Chernobyl accident happened, including design issues, safety systems and human factors? How does the safety of the new SIR compare to the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor design? If you were to build a nuclear power plant today, what design would you use? What coolant would you chose? How would you construct your pressure vessel? How would you clad your fuel? What fuel would you use? Natural U, enriched, MOX, other? Would you consider thermal, epithermal or fast? WHat about your moderator? Would you have passive or active safety systems? What about reactor control? Would it be manual or automatic or a combination of both?
What are these lies you speak of?
How would you compare the safety of the most modern PWR to AGR?
What would be the basis for your unsupported assertion?
I have lots of basis. I'm going to spend a bit of time replying to some of the more ludicrous nonsense on this thread when I am not so busy. Watch this space.
Many of these integrated browsers were started long before Mozilla got useful or Mozilla Firebird was coneived. Yes, GNOME and KDE are that old. Some people have short memories.
Man, at his age, with his money and with his achievements, I wouldn't be going to work for anyone. I'd write a few books and build space rockets and take part in the X Prize or something. You guys have no imagination.
If I have time later, I might post some annotations to those articles you linked to. I plan to set up a site for explaining the facts about nuclear power some time. Nuclear power is too good to waste. The public needs to be educated.
Don't try to make me look stupid, I'm perfectly aware people die. BTW I'm not particularly uneducated, albeit slowly I'm getting a degree in Electronic Engineering and had my good deal of Math, Physics, Quantum Mechanics, etc... I admit I'm not specifically trained in nuclear physics but I'm not your usual cab-driver opinionist.
Let's not start name-calling, pulling rank etc.
Trouble is: nuclear pollution doesn't wear out but adds up; dangerously radioactive elements don't just decompose but remain in the environment for centuries if not millennia.
That's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. These waste products are mostly radioactive, so by definition they undergo radioactive decay, and hence cease to be radioactive. The really "bad" ones are stored i.e. isolated from the environment. You do not consider the amount of tis pollution. The is no doubt that there is some. It would be foolish and lies to say otherwise, but that which has been discharged deliberately is not as toxic or radioactive as you make iut, in fact most of it is within the natural varience of natural background radiation, and often is so weak it is barely detectable.
As for it building up, yes some organisms (plants and animals) do concentrate certain isotopes. For example, if you were to ingest caesium it would concentrate in your bones in place of calcium because it is chemically similar. However, as I said before, this stuff is decaying away all the time, so the radiation is constantly getting weaker, as it were. There have been many studies of the uptake of radioactive isotopes by living organisms, and there will be many more. Any adverse effects are miniscule compared to the effects of other forms of pollution and the effect of natural radioactivity on these organisms (and disease etc.) Frequently, the anti-nuclear mod jump on the inconclusive nature of the results of these studies to claim all sorts of things.
But then, slamming one of the links I proposed
...which was largely nonsense. It was bareley coherent and full of factual inaccuracies (lies?).
...proceeded to state that now it's safe and clean.
The nulcear reprocessing operation at Sellafield was never dangerous in the first place. However, as standards improve, discharge limits and dose limits are reduced. Now, the Windscale reactors of the 1950's on the Sellafield site, which were extremely crude and dangerous reactors whose sole purpose was the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons, that's another story. These reactors have not been operated since the 1950's. There are currently being dismantled. The contamination from the accident has now died down to a level such that it is considered safe for people to demlish them
Again, do not confuse the reprocessing work, MOX production, clean up and electricity generation on the Sellafield site today with the folly of the 1950's nuclear arms race.
radioactive elements don't just decompose but remain in the environment for centuries if not millennia
Wrong! By definition, they decay, and most have much shorter half-lives. In fact after a few decades the amound of radioactivity left is several orders of magnitue smaller than when released, which wasn't that bad to start with.
A quick question to you: Do you honestly think we deliberately (or even accidentally) pollute the environment with dangerously radioactive isotopes?
Your happy hearted recklessness pretty much confirms my skepticism on the nuclear industry.
My reply was happy-hearted but nor reckless. The nulcear undustry in the UK takes the utmost care to ensure the safety of the public, the environment and its staff. It's the only industry that can fully account for all of its waste. I should know, it was my job. I was extremely skeptical myself before I went to work for them.
And no, I didn't have to sign the Official Secrets Act.
It's all above board, heavily monitored and regulated (by independent regulators), the information is all public and there is a culture of constantly striving to improve safety and environmental standards.
And for goodness' sake, don't just believe everything that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth tell you, or the BBC for that matter, or BNFL or whoever, look at all sides of the story.
As well, I've worked in the SCADA (System Control And Data Aquisition)industry and despite massive efforts by sincere and committed programmers and engineers, there are still issues concerning software problems.
That's why you need a good British reactor design that does not rely on computers of nuclear safety. Good old analogue electronics that rely on the workings of nature for reactor protection, and not billions of man-made components.
That's one of the big problems with the PWR design.
You get entire regions gravely contaminated for centuries, millennia, eras where no human can live without 100% chance of dying.
Sorry, but your logic is broken. No human being on earth can live without a 100% chance of dying. It's an inevitability. You're born, you're going to die.
Anyway, these sorts of comments are the result of the uneducated public misunderstanding the way that risk is calculated. You see, there is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation, much in the same way that there is no such thing as a "safe" speed at which to drive your car (other than zero). This concept is lost on most people.
The MOX safety records debacle was a storm in a teacup. The reason these things get so much attention is that nuclear safety standards are so high, the slightest erosion of them is taken very seriously. To put some perspective on the MOX records falsification, it was bored human operators missing out a final stage in the procedure because it was tedious. The MOX pellets are made entirely by machine to the highest possible engineering standards. Part of the manufacturing process involves measuring the dimensions of the pellets to ensure that they are within tolerance. This is done automatically using lasers. The final stage missed out by the operators was a manual check using a micrometer, which is orders of magnitude less accurate, but required by the procedure. They got bored so they wrote an Excel macro to generate false measurements complete with "random experimental error".
It is worth remembering that the BBC is vehemently anti-nuclear and likes a good bit of sensationalism, especially when it is "anti-establishment."
As for the contamination of the Irish sea, yes Sellafield has been discharging small qulantites of radioactive waste into it for deacdes, but if you care to check the facts you will see that the quantities have been reduced dramatically over the years, and continue to be revised downwards in accordance with the principles of constantly striving to improve safety and treatment of the environment. That article is a load of scaremongering FUD. Just look at the way it is written. A meltdown at Sellafield? What has that got to do with treating radioactive waste?
It's not just the USA. Unless you live in France, your country probably has a really negative attitude to nuclear power, which has been allowed to grow over the last 30 years. It stems from the serious nuclear accidents of the past (Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl) coupled wig public ignorance, "environmental" groups with political agendas and good old fasioned FUD and sensationalism in the press. People will tell you about the accidents, but they won't tell you about the benefits, the advances of the last 50 years and the potential for the future, including the huge environmental benefits. This new Nulcear University is the best news I've heard in 10 years, regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Oh, I was a Reactor Physics Engineer at a nuclear powerstation in the UK until the lack of direction, investment and doubt about the medium-term future of the industry forced me to leave and become a software engineer... Not that I'm bitter or anything.
A lot of commercial stuff was in hand-written machine code because it was the only way to get it small and fast enough to run on the hardware. While you couldn't just "LIST" the program, you could examine the content of memory, and with a disassembler or opcode table you could read the program. (If your machine was a 6502 you probably didn't even need the opcode table...)
I wonder how many people today realise that MS-DOS (and the DOS-based Windows 9x series) came with a machine code monitor/assembler/disassembler as standard? It was pretty feeble but it was always there and it taught me a lot. debug it was called. Those were the days...
You know, techno techno handbag disco... It's what proles aka the Great Unwashed listen to and can be heard balring out of cars with blackened windows, frewuently at a distance of quarter of a mile above the thunderous roar from the illegal exhaust pipe. It's what Essex girls dance around their handbags to on Friday and Saturday nights, hence the term "handbag music." Think techno, drum 'n' bass, R'N'B (sic), jungle, ragga, Madonna, Kylie, boy and girl bands, that sort of thing.
Are you the w**ker that drives up and down the road in front of my house at night in the rusty old Renault 5 with the blacked out windows, over-sized exhaust pipe, cheap plastic spoiler and loud handbag music? I'll wanr you now, when you least expect it I will unleash the stinger.
Compared to science, sports requires very little intelligence. That's why sports are so popular. They appeal to the less than average, average and above average. Science only appeals to the above average. To joe sixpack, science is elitist. Sports are not. It really is that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and here in the UK there would be a lot more mindless"garage", techno, handbag, "R'N'B", ragga, "jungle", "drum'n'bass" by kids who have never picked up a guitar or any other musical instrument other than drum machines, sampling keyboards and PCs with sequencing software producing a deluge of incomprehensible and offensive nonsense that goes "Me undapant is an fiya, give me 200 quid", "check out ma maladie, check out ma maladie", "I got a AK and is goin to put a cap in yo ass", "I wanna sex you up", "I've gotta little somethin' for ya" (yuck) etc.
Now, don't get me started on the Darkness. The cheesiest, most un-original, derivative, talentless and feeble rock band to hit the big time since the Quireboys.
...and just think of all that yummy Indian food! :-)
But it's all true I tell you!
No, it's the super spider powers, silly.
Stupid me. I meant research. I know that fusion is done with inertial confinement and tokamaks, not particle accelerators. I was trying to be mildly insulting.
I didn't call anyone names.
You are not going to find many politicians of either party willing to stick their neck out for the nuclear lobby.
We have several political parties in this country. But, yes, no one is going to stick their neck out yet. I intend to help change that. A lot has progressed in the last 20 years, politically, scientifically and economically. There is a lot of ignorance and superstition of nuclear power in society. That needs to change. You yourself, a highly intelligent and educated person if what you claim is true, are not just skeptical but hostile to the nuclear industry. I have worked in it. Past mistakes aside, nuclear power has so much good to offer us. However ignorance, fear and superstition amongs the public has all but killed it off. It's far too good an opportunity to waste.
Just as you can not blame this generation for the Crusades or slavery, you can not blame the current generation of scientists and engineers for the folly of the past in the nuclear industry. They must be allowed to get on with their work, if only to clean up the mess left by their grandfathers. The irrational rantings of the "environmantal" pressure groups, sensationalism of the press and weak will of the politicians do nothing but instill fear and loathing in the public and hinder progress.
If only the message could be got across effectively about the progress made and the great benefit peaceful nuclear power has to offer, the world could be a cleaner, greener, more productive place.
People who bandy about great qualifications, hints of associations with the famous but have little experience and direct knowledge of the modern industry should hold their tongues, and do some research. This is 2003, not 1973.
I left the nuclear industry because it had been all but ruined by the ignorant, greedy and selfish. We were supposed to be heartened that the UK government might consider building new nuclear genearting capacity in 50 years time. Even to someone in their mid 20's, sitting around counting fuel elements out of decomissioning old reactors and demolishing them for the rest of their careers is not an attractive proposition.
So, you've almost got your wish. The mistakes of the past, coupled with short-termist economics, weak-willed poiliticians, ignorant "environmentalists", sensationalist press, and public fear have all but killed the British nuclear industry. However, the waste still needs to be dealt with, so I'm afraid your much-loathed Sellafield will not be going away any time soon. Or perhaps like the Greepeace, Friends of the Earth and Green Party fools, you'd just like to leave the waste lying around at decomissioning generating sites?
You particle accelerator boys had better get your nuclear fusion going soon, or the lights will be going out, and the French will be getting very rich.
You're the one making the grand claims of PhDs, Nobel Prize professors, particle accelerators (and some tenuous links to civillain nuclear power). Now you are going on to claim that The then chair of the electricity industry, Lord Marshall lied to me in person when he claimed that the nuclear power plants were cheaper to run. That statement was untrue, a fact that has since been acknowledged to me, again in person by a senior cabinet minister in Thatcher's government.
The nuclear industry in the UK has a long and very political history. I've heard many things frmo many people, many with PhDs, many with 40 years experience in the nuclear industry in reactor design, reactor physics, health physics - you name it. I've heard things from "mad environmentalists" who warned me I was going to die of cancer as they puffed on their filterless roll-up cigarrettes, and now I hear more unsibstantiated FUD frmo a slashdot troll.
Thatcher's government did many a suspect thing, many an unwise thing and many a short-term thing in their rule. Screwing up the nuclear industry was one such thing. They plundered its decomissioning cash to pay for their privatisation schemes.
As for the lies of the nuclear industry, you simply do not build any kind of dangerous plant at Three Mile Island if safety is your first concern
The PWR isn't an ideal design, and especially not when coupled with the low safety standards used at the time in the USA. Compare the PWR at TMI with Sizewell B.
The economics of the Electricity Supply Industry of the UK have changed dramatically in the last decade. The market has been rigged to favour the burning of gas at the expense of all other power sources. As such, the nuclear industry (Magnox, AGR and PWR) have all found themselves in a procarious financial situation. It is now not possible to invest in power generation in the UK because electricity prices are too low. This is good for the consumer (and wins votes) in the short term. Give it another 5 years or so and we'll see.
Anyway, that's enough Troll-feeding for today.
What are these lies you speak of?
How would you compare the safety of the most modern PWR to AGR?
I have lots of basis. I'm going to spend a bit of time replying to some of the more ludicrous nonsense on this thread when I am not so busy. Watch this space.
That's the biggest load of ill-informed, scare-mongering nonsense I've heard in quite a while.
Many of these integrated browsers were started long before Mozilla got useful or Mozilla Firebird was coneived. Yes, GNOME and KDE are that old. Some people have short memories.
Will my flying car come with computers based on MRAM?
Man, at his age, with his money and with his achievements, I wouldn't be going to work for anyone. I'd write a few books and build space rockets and take part in the X Prize or something. You guys have no imagination.
If I have time later, I might post some annotations to those articles you linked to. I plan to set up a site for explaining the facts about nuclear power some time. Nuclear power is too good to waste. The public needs to be educated.
Let's not start name-calling, pulling rank etc. Trouble is: nuclear pollution doesn't wear out but adds up; dangerously radioactive elements don't just decompose but remain in the environment for centuries if not millennia.
That's an overly simplistic way of looking at it. These waste products are mostly radioactive, so by definition they undergo radioactive decay, and hence cease to be radioactive. The really "bad" ones are stored i.e. isolated from the environment. You do not consider the amount of tis pollution. The is no doubt that there is some. It would be foolish and lies to say otherwise, but that which has been discharged deliberately is not as toxic or radioactive as you make iut, in fact most of it is within the natural varience of natural background radiation, and often is so weak it is barely detectable.
As for it building up, yes some organisms (plants and animals) do concentrate certain isotopes. For example, if you were to ingest caesium it would concentrate in your bones in place of calcium because it is chemically similar. However, as I said before, this stuff is decaying away all the time, so the radiation is constantly getting weaker, as it were. There have been many studies of the uptake of radioactive isotopes by living organisms, and there will be many more. Any adverse effects are miniscule compared to the effects of other forms of pollution and the effect of natural radioactivity on these organisms (and disease etc.) Frequently, the anti-nuclear mod jump on the inconclusive nature of the results of these studies to claim all sorts of things.
But then, slamming one of the links I proposed
...which was largely nonsense. It was bareley coherent and full of factual inaccuracies (lies?).
The nulcear reprocessing operation at Sellafield was never dangerous in the first place. However, as standards improve, discharge limits and dose limits are reduced. Now, the Windscale reactors of the 1950's on the Sellafield site, which were extremely crude and dangerous reactors whose sole purpose was the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons, that's another story. These reactors have not been operated since the 1950's. There are currently being dismantled. The contamination from the accident has now died down to a level such that it is considered safe for people to demlish them
Again, do not confuse the reprocessing work, MOX production, clean up and electricity generation on the Sellafield site today with the folly of the 1950's nuclear arms race.
radioactive elements don't just decompose but remain in the environment for centuries if not millennia
Wrong! By definition, they decay, and most have much shorter half-lives. In fact after a few decades the amound of radioactivity left is several orders of magnitue smaller than when released, which wasn't that bad to start with.
A quick question to you: Do you honestly think we deliberately (or even accidentally) pollute the environment with dangerously radioactive isotopes?
Your happy hearted recklessness pretty much confirms my skepticism on the nuclear industry.
My reply was happy-hearted but nor reckless. The nulcear undustry in the UK takes the utmost care to ensure the safety of the public, the environment and its staff. It's the only industry that can fully account for all of its waste. I should know, it was my job. I was extremely skeptical myself before I went to work for them.
And no, I didn't have to sign the Official Secrets Act.
It's all above board, heavily monitored and regulated (by independent regulators), the information is all public and there is a culture of constantly striving to improve safety and environmental standards.
And for goodness' sake, don't just believe everything that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth tell you, or the BBC for that matter, or BNFL or whoever, look at all sides of the story.
That's why you need a good British reactor design that does not rely on computers of nuclear safety. Good old analogue electronics that rely on the workings of nature for reactor protection, and not billions of man-made components.
That's one of the big problems with the PWR design.
Sorry, but your logic is broken. No human being on earth can live without a 100% chance of dying. It's an inevitability. You're born, you're going to die.
Anyway, these sorts of comments are the result of the uneducated public misunderstanding the way that risk is calculated. You see, there is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation, much in the same way that there is no such thing as a "safe" speed at which to drive your car (other than zero). This concept is lost on most people.
The MOX safety records debacle was a storm in a teacup. The reason these things get so much attention is that nuclear safety standards are so high, the slightest erosion of them is taken very seriously. To put some perspective on the MOX records falsification, it was bored human operators missing out a final stage in the procedure because it was tedious. The MOX pellets are made entirely by machine to the highest possible engineering standards. Part of the manufacturing process involves measuring the dimensions of the pellets to ensure that they are within tolerance. This is done automatically using lasers. The final stage missed out by the operators was a manual check using a micrometer, which is orders of magnitude less accurate, but required by the procedure. They got bored so they wrote an Excel macro to generate false measurements complete with "random experimental error".
It is worth remembering that the BBC is vehemently anti-nuclear and likes a good bit of sensationalism, especially when it is "anti-establishment."
As for the contamination of the Irish sea, yes Sellafield has been discharging small qulantites of radioactive waste into it for deacdes, but if you care to check the facts you will see that the quantities have been reduced dramatically over the years, and continue to be revised downwards in accordance with the principles of constantly striving to improve safety and treatment of the environment. That article is a load of scaremongering FUD. Just look at the way it is written. A meltdown at Sellafield? What has that got to do with treating radioactive waste?
If you want the facts about nuclear power, nuclear waste, radiation, nuclear safety and regulation, you could do a lot wors than to start here:
The Nuclear Safety Directorate and the National Radiological Protection Board
It's not just the USA. Unless you live in France, your country probably has a really negative attitude to nuclear power, which has been allowed to grow over the last 30 years. It stems from the serious nuclear accidents of the past (Windscale, TMI, Chernobyl) coupled wig public ignorance, "environmental" groups with political agendas and good old fasioned FUD and sensationalism in the press. People will tell you about the accidents, but they won't tell you about the benefits, the advances of the last 50 years and the potential for the future, including the huge environmental benefits. This new Nulcear University is the best news I've heard in 10 years, regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Oh, I was a Reactor Physics Engineer at a nuclear powerstation in the UK until the lack of direction, investment and doubt about the medium-term future of the industry forced me to leave and become a software engineer... Not that I'm bitter or anything.
I wonder how many people today realise that MS-DOS (and the DOS-based Windows 9x series) came with a machine code monitor/assembler/disassembler as standard? It was pretty feeble but it was always there and it taught me a lot. debug it was called. Those were the days...
There is also a West Sussex and an East Sussex. There used to be a Middlesex and a Wessex too, but they fell by the wayside.
You know, techno techno handbag disco...
It's what proles aka the Great Unwashed listen to and can be heard balring out of cars with blackened windows, frewuently at a distance of quarter of a mile above the thunderous roar from the illegal exhaust pipe. It's what Essex girls dance around their handbags to on Friday and Saturday nights, hence the term "handbag music."
Think techno, drum 'n' bass, R'N'B (sic), jungle, ragga, Madonna, Kylie, boy and girl bands, that sort of thing.
Are you the w**ker that drives up and down the road in front of my house at night in the rusty old Renault 5 with the blacked out windows, over-sized exhaust pipe, cheap plastic spoiler and loud handbag music? I'll wanr you now, when you least expect it I will unleash the stinger.
A Wankel engine of course!
Compared to science, sports requires very little intelligence. That's why sports are so popular. They appeal to the less than average, average and above average. Science only appeals to the above average. To joe sixpack, science is elitist. Sports are not. It really is that simple.
Quite. And what happens when it's served its purpose to Microsoft and they quietly withdraw funding?
The first hit of heroin's always free.