That's when I'll bone up on my telekinesis skills and head to the bank with a load of black bags and "lift" me some cash.. Wheee Apple Store & 50 XServes here I come...
Sorry, matey, I finished Uni; didn't drop out till *after* i got my degree (and then only for financial/business reasons, my grades were great).
I am convinced that there is such a large body of evidence, much of it shaky but some of it not, from o many varied and different sources, many of them out and out disbelievers who nonetheless feel it right to report their observations, even though they don't believe the conclusions themselves, that there *is* something going on. I then elaborated with a hypothesis mostly pulled out of my arse as to what the something might be, but for all I know, all those who claim visions, or powers etc. could all be suffering from the same syndrome, or any other number of other rational explanations.
I don't believe in any psychic phenomena absolutely, merely I accept there is nothing particularly that prohibits their existence so until I am shown evidence to the contrary I will maintain an open mind when such claims are made that are not obviously bogus. I must admit I am leery of precog. I can think of several easily plausible ways that telepathy, empathy and remote viewing could occur, ditto affinities with water or electricity. Telling the future? Not so sure of that, but I'm still willing to keep an open mind. Science requires us to do so; just don't make conclusions... Have all the untried or unproven theories you like, as I do, just don't assume they are fact. I don't.
Homeopathy on the other hand *has* been proven (at least to my satisfaction in a study I read in Uni) to be complete tat. There are many herbal remedies that do work, but homeopathy uses such low doses that there's not possible way they're having a medicinal effect. Crystals? That *may* have something in it; electrical impulses from the brain, resonation in crystalline structures etc. On the other hand it may be a bunch of voodoo bullshit. Pity there's not been any studies done.
Lastly, ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the out-argued, the outwitted and the outclassed. Try and avoid them.
The telepathy thing was kinda my point, although as usual the/. crowd have gotten the wrong stick and ran with it. I'm not saying there's some spooky 'spirit' bullshit going on. Matter of fact I'm not even that religious. What I am saying is that there's an awful lot of noise about telepathy et al going on, so much so that I doubt it's *all* bullshit. Telepathy, empathy etc. ARE possible, and if they happen, they will have explainable rational scientific basis' for their existence and execution, like, as you said electrical brain-wave reception, or the like. Don't know if it *is* happening; I've not studied it for decades, done major investigations into it. All's I;m saying i that it *is* scientifically possible, and so we should investigate the claims properly before we throw the baby out with the bathwater...
I'e seen too much evidence that sure, it might be coincidence, but on the other hand it might not. Randi's as bad as the hoaxers. No objectivity at all. I'd like to see an objective study using MRI scanning at the time a "psychic" makes a prediction, see if there's anything odd happening. We've already seen how plants exploit quantum effects for their benefit, and I've heard theories (just theories mark you) of how an evolved response in humans where they'd use a quantum effect to ascertain probability, or even influence probability. And that's just pre-cognisance, one of the harder telepathic skills to explain. Telepathy, empathy, all of them are scientifically possible. Whether they do or do not exist hasn't yet been proven A rigourous study with a *lot* of people that claim these skills and have a good body of evidence to suggest they may would be good. I suspect if there is any such person, that the skill would be extremely nebulous, and prone to double-guessing by their conscious mind, hence why some of them may exhibit the skill at home when they're not really caring, but might not work in a stressful environment when they *want* something to happen to get their grubby mitts on the $1 million.
I'm not a believer in many things, so call me a sceptic that has an open mind. I'm still convinced though that there is *something* paranormal at work with some people's minds. The average tea-room women, probably not. But every now and then you get someone who's predictions are too good, too spot-on time after time, that there is most likely something at work there. Then you've got the remote-viewers; some of them had success rates so good both the Russians and the Americans employed them in the Cold War (and probably still do) to telepathically spy on the enemies missile bases.
You've then got empaths; people that can sense the mood of a group or a crowd, sometimes even affect it. Sure, these paranormal abilities are damned rare, and most claiming them are fakers. But I think there are at least a handful of genuine freaks out there. Probably something like 1 in 5 million or the like. Homeopathy? Yeah, it's a scam. But as I said, I think everyone has a latent ability that only that 1 in however million can actually consciously use. So maybe in the few documented cases where homeopathy has worked, it's just someone tapping into their paranormal talent and not knowing it. Either way, some proper research from a reputable scientist that isn't setting out to disprove psychic abilities, just wants to see if anything is happenin, would be really nice.
Ah, wasn't actually implying it should be at $35 today! Would be nice if it were, but it shouldn't be. Please also bear in mind it was legal to trade in the UK, where I am. I agree that $500-600 is a reasonable price right now. Sadly it's inadvisable to be buying gold at the 1/8oz level, since the premium you'll pay for any coins/bullion in them amounts overrule any possible gains, and for safekeeping you're better off saving the cash till you can buy ounces, as indeed I am doing. I'd prefer silver though because profits can still be made at low levels and it's easier to liquidate piece by piece at sub-$100 amounts. Alas the British govt. tax silver. I'll buy some gold the next time it hits $750. I'm guessing it'll do that around midsummer, before a steep climb around autumn, maybe even hitting $1000 at Xmas. I can hope. Good luck in your investments, and I'll note that the value of your investments may fall as well as rise, I am not an authorised advisor or broker, none of this post or any other should be used as advice.
True that gold is over-inflated. Has been since the US left it in the 70's, when it was a very reasonable $35. Silver is about on the money at $12. If I could buy silver without paying tax, I would. Added to that the fact that I can afford silver. I can't really afford to invest in gold; I simply don't have several thousand, but what I do have I'd like to keep in secure medium so when the GBP£ dies on it's arse, my wealth isn't with it. Either which way, precious metals are the way. Gold is easier to trade, silver's better for small amounts, copper is great for a base level of commerce since i' worth quite a bit. Funny really that the ld currencies all used gold, silver and copper (or bronze, granted). I think we may even move back to the Gold standard when this recession really starts (you think it's been bad already? Wait some). A gold-backed coinage might be less convenient since the Govt. have to store all that gold and there's a finite amount of it. But it sure beats the shit out of paper-money that's worth the cost of paper and ink.
You're missing little, trust me. That was the lamest list of "easter egg's" I've ever seen. Most of them were minor apps in Ubuntu that just aren't well known. Then there's the telnet of the ASCII star wars movie, hardly an easter egg. What happened to the famed Excel flight-sim? Or any number or other great jokes. Not to mention the gratuitous use of shitty videos with the worst narrator in history, who incidentally swallowed the microphone before starting...
I gues this all depends on location... If it's in the contract you sign with a bank, then fair enough.... I was talking about the ethics of the situation however, not legalities. On that score though, certainly where I live (Scotland), if you have a parking facility you offer to people under conditions (such as your car being forfeit if you don't pay), you've agreed to a contract by parking there, as long as the sign is clearly visible etc. So tough shit....
It *could* actually work. We're already seeing natural gestures in touch. If you rig up a camera to watch the facial movements of a user, you could specify various movements to do things. Blink - close tab. Blink twice - close window. Wink with left eye - new tab kinda thing.
Americans speak English? Colour me shocked. I'm honoured by the former colonies finally deciding they should speak English instead of that polyglot mishmash of deliberately misspelled mis-applied words.
Not very worse off at all. But sadly there starts the slippery slope. If you give your government power over what speech is "hateful" or not, then it is they who decide just how hateful something must be. Eventually, the more extreme politicians will have their say, and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list. Then people become used to the idea of the list. Sooner or later someone comes along who wants to add their own little viewpoint in there without the "people" standing up and making a fuss. So the more extreme dissenters of government policy get quietly silenced. no one makes a fuss, after all, you've already banned the racists, homophobes and political extremists, so who will miss a few moaning greenpeacers or aclu-types. They could be dangerous, they stand up for terrorists after all. So dissent gets shut down and ever more extreme political power is yielded. Do it all over society, as I believe is happening in the UK (protest is now illegal without permits, habeus corpus is suspended at will, it's illegal to say some things now), and you end up in a Police State. I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it. Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them. Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...
Yeah. If they fuck up, no biggie really, after all, he's 73. You brain-damage or kill someone in their 20's though, or worse yet a kid and the lawsuits will be rolling in till they *would* have been in their 70's.
There are things more important than the pretty bits of paper you Americans cling to. I'd thought the past few months would have shown you this. Profit does not always mean money.
True to a degree. But Leopard's "200 new things" list didn't include some things that are "BIG", and did include the likes of "new default desktop background". Objective-C 2.0 is a BIG thing (which was mentioned in the list, but not really hyped much). A very big thing. I'd say Leopard is the biggest advance in OS X since the public beta. It's a new way to write programs. Then there's CoreAnimation, which hasn't really seen much usage yet but has the potential to bring about a new way for people to use a GUI. A much richer and graphically "pretty" interface. OK, so it's not an "important" thing to most people but to those of us in the know about UI, it is a Big Thing and not just aero-like eye-candy. Leopard made OS X much more interesting and appealing to write apps to. Too bad most users just saw the 3D dock and a new desktop background and thought that was that
I might add they also finally fixed some long-standing glitches. I can finally use the finder to share files safe in the knowledge that if the share goes offline my machine won't just stop.
Looking ahead, Snow Leopard is gonna bring more "big" things under the hood and a new paint job outside. Most people might not even see the changes. But the multi-core optimizing is a pretty big thing....
True. Damned English parties ruin everything. At least here in Scotland we have the SNP. Maybe after independence we'll let you have them too. If you ask nicely...
I know you were being facetious, but it really wouldn't surprise me. And, as you may know from watching the sex-scandals of american Republicans (like the anti-sex trade campaigner caught using escorts, or that "gay people shouldn't have any rights" guy caught in the toilets with a cop..), as you can guess, the Conservative party are usually the worst. There's something about being right-wing that lends itself to sexual perversion and scandal. Oh, sure, Labour, the Lib-Dems, they have their sex scandals, but only the Tories really go that extra mile for front page immortality. Be it toe-sucking David Mellar, another tory MP whom I believe died by strangulation (tights (pantyhose) iirc) they really know where sexual depravity is at. Maybe that's why they keep trying to ban everything; they know the depths that these things can reach, they've done it!
To be fair, aging half-german (kidding, I don't mind you krauts. At least you're not French) spoilt rich biddy though she is, I'd actually prefer 'Liz to the morons we suffer to call a government. At least we know she would genuinely try to make us better off, since she knows that short of a revolution, she's there for life. Politicians have to be re-elected every 5 years. This should (in theory) be an impetus to make things better. It's not. It's an impetus to do the least amount possible in order to fool enough voters that they're making things better, or in Labour's case, that voting for the other guy would make thing worse. An autocratic monarch has to do little enough to avoid revolution. But, they get a lifetime to get it right and if they really do care (as many seem to have in the past), they don't have to try and make things work in 5 years, they can take as lon as they need to get it done Even if that means their kids and grandkids. Monarchies are more stable inherently. Except when you get some insane King, or a revolution. But in between such occurrences things are groovy.
The only way a democracy could work is one like the Swiss. I think 'net technology could really help here. Imagine everyone being able to vote on key issues, maybe even all issues. Online, from home at a regular time each week. Sure, you risk issue-fication, where most people don't bother except the nutters who really care. But widespread democracy is only really being seen on the net now with the likes of mass polls, And they seem fairly stable.
The set of circumstances that led to Chernebyl itself may well be extremely unlikely, maybe even impossible, but a similar sized disaster is sadly not. Just 10 or so years ago, Sizewell had a sizeable near-miss; were it not for good training, procedures and sheer luck, half of southern england would be a bit inhospitable now...
My point i that although I see no major problem with it's use as a backup, nuclear should not ever be the mainstay of an energy policy Renewables are safe and with the correct investment, practically free (in the extreme long term; it's been estimated that a properly run solar site would cost 1% of its output over a 25 year period). Only problem with them i you need a lot of them, and people need to stop wasting power wily-nily. The days of cheap abundant electricity are coming to a close. You can either have cheap (renewable) or abundant (nuclear). Not both. A combination of the two, with a heavy emphasis on green power over nuclear is what we need; as I said, here we're already on track for 50% green by 2020. I doubt the US, the world's supposedly "richest" nation is near that yet. Point of fact, aside from storm damage, I can't remember the last time we had a power cut or a black out. Think the last service-restrictions we saw were in the '70's before I was born. Perhaps you should think on that...
I disagree on your idea about the 20% being ok. I think we could, one day run the world on virtually 100% renewable energy. Here in Scotland we're already on 20%, moving up to 50% by 2020. All it takes is political will and investment of public monies.
OK, so this stupid idea won't work. But there are other production/energy storage ideas that will, hydro, tidal (the rising star, as it were), solar. I'd be willing to aim for a renewable 90% and a nuclear 10% as a standby for that rare day when the hydrogen/storage is empty, it's cloudy, still and there's no tides.
But whatever we go for on the nuclear/renewable side, something will have to be done, because like it or not, oil and gas will run out. Might not be this year, or this decade or even the next one. Hell, it might last till we're all dead and it's 2100. But it will run out.
Indeed. After all, Chernobyl was in Russia, and everyone knows that any "scientist" from Russia is clearly less intelligent than the thickest high school dropout in America (cough)threemileisland(cough)....
Seriously though, just because Chernobyl is unlikely to occur in the West, or even in Russia these days, it's still a possibility. I think I'd rather get my power from wind turbines and solar, and not live in fear that one day someone cuts one corner to many in the quest to lower costs and I end up glowing in the dark...
Actually, it's usage can't be illegal; all it does is allow you to watch the content available to iPhone users. Of course you can't save stuff on the iPhone, but the BBC offers these downloads. We just allow you to get them. Kinda like changing your browsers user-agent.
I paid my licence fee, I can tape stuff off the TV. Why the hell do they use DRM when they already allow you access??
Slashdot Mirror
That's when I'll bone up on my telekinesis skills and head to the bank with a load of black bags and "lift" me some cash..
Wheee Apple Store & 50 XServes here I come...
If only.
Sorry, matey, I finished Uni; didn't drop out till *after* i got my degree (and then only for financial/business reasons, my grades were great).
I am convinced that there is such a large body of evidence, much of it shaky but some of it not, from o many varied and different sources, many of them out and out disbelievers who nonetheless feel it right to report their observations, even though they don't believe the conclusions themselves, that there *is* something going on. I then elaborated with a hypothesis mostly pulled out of my arse as to what the something might be, but for all I know, all those who claim visions, or powers etc. could all be suffering from the same syndrome, or any other number of other rational explanations.
I don't believe in any psychic phenomena absolutely, merely I accept there is nothing particularly that prohibits their existence so until I am shown evidence to the contrary I will maintain an open mind when such claims are made that are not obviously bogus. I must admit I am leery of precog. I can think of several easily plausible ways that telepathy, empathy and remote viewing could occur, ditto affinities with water or electricity. Telling the future? Not so sure of that, but I'm still willing to keep an open mind. Science requires us to do so; just don't make conclusions...
Have all the untried or unproven theories you like, as I do, just don't assume they are fact. I don't.
Homeopathy on the other hand *has* been proven (at least to my satisfaction in a study I read in Uni) to be complete tat. There are many herbal remedies that do work, but homeopathy uses such low doses that there's not possible way they're having a medicinal effect.
Crystals? That *may* have something in it; electrical impulses from the brain, resonation in crystalline structures etc. On the other hand it may be a bunch of voodoo bullshit. Pity there's not been any studies done.
Lastly, ad hominem attacks are the last resort of the out-argued, the outwitted and the outclassed. Try and avoid them.
The telepathy thing was kinda my point, although as usual the /. crowd have gotten the wrong stick and ran with it.
I'm not saying there's some spooky 'spirit' bullshit going on. Matter of fact I'm not even that religious.
What I am saying is that there's an awful lot of noise about telepathy et al going on, so much so that I doubt it's *all* bullshit.
Telepathy, empathy etc. ARE possible, and if they happen, they will have explainable rational scientific basis' for their existence and execution, like, as you said electrical brain-wave reception, or the like.
Don't know if it *is* happening; I've not studied it for decades, done major investigations into it. All's I;m saying i that it *is* scientifically possible, and so we should investigate the claims properly before we throw the baby out with the bathwater...
I'e seen too much evidence that sure, it might be coincidence, but on the other hand it might not. Randi's as bad as the hoaxers. No objectivity at all. I'd like to see an objective study using MRI scanning at the time a "psychic" makes a prediction, see if there's anything odd happening. We've already seen how plants exploit quantum effects for their benefit, and I've heard theories (just theories mark you) of how an evolved response in humans where they'd use a quantum effect to ascertain probability, or even influence probability. And that's just pre-cognisance, one of the harder telepathic skills to explain. Telepathy, empathy, all of them are scientifically possible. Whether they do or do not exist hasn't yet been proven A rigourous study with a *lot* of people that claim these skills and have a good body of evidence to suggest they may would be good. I suspect if there is any such person, that the skill would be extremely nebulous, and prone to double-guessing by their conscious mind, hence why some of them may exhibit the skill at home when they're not really caring, but might not work in a stressful environment when they *want* something to happen to get their grubby mitts on the $1 million.
I'm not a believer in many things, so call me a sceptic that has an open mind. I'm still convinced though that there is *something* paranormal at work with some people's minds. The average tea-room women, probably not. But every now and then you get someone who's predictions are too good, too spot-on time after time, that there is most likely something at work there. Then you've got the remote-viewers; some of them had success rates so good both the Russians and the Americans employed them in the Cold War (and probably still do) to telepathically spy on the enemies missile bases.
You've then got empaths; people that can sense the mood of a group or a crowd, sometimes even affect it.
Sure, these paranormal abilities are damned rare, and most claiming them are fakers. But I think there are at least a handful of genuine freaks out there. Probably something like 1 in 5 million or the like.
Homeopathy? Yeah, it's a scam. But as I said, I think everyone has a latent ability that only that 1 in however million can actually consciously use. So maybe in the few documented cases where homeopathy has worked, it's just someone tapping into their paranormal talent and not knowing it.
Either way, some proper research from a reputable scientist that isn't setting out to disprove psychic abilities, just wants to see if anything is happenin, would be really nice.
Ah, wasn't actually implying it should be at $35 today! Would be nice if it were, but it shouldn't be. Please also bear in mind it was legal to trade in the UK, where I am. I agree that $500-600 is a reasonable price right now.
Sadly it's inadvisable to be buying gold at the 1/8oz level, since the premium you'll pay for any coins/bullion in them amounts overrule any possible gains, and for safekeeping you're better off saving the cash till you can buy ounces, as indeed I am doing. I'd prefer silver though because profits can still be made at low levels and it's easier to liquidate piece by piece at sub-$100 amounts. Alas the British govt. tax silver. I'll buy some gold the next time it hits $750. I'm guessing it'll do that around midsummer, before a steep climb around autumn, maybe even hitting $1000 at Xmas. I can hope.
Good luck in your investments, and I'll note that the value of your investments may fall as well as rise, I am not an authorised advisor or broker, none of this post or any other should be used as advice.
True that gold is over-inflated. Has been since the US left it in the 70's, when it was a very reasonable $35.
Silver is about on the money at $12. If I could buy silver without paying tax, I would. Added to that the fact that I can afford silver. I can't really afford to invest in gold; I simply don't have several thousand, but what I do have I'd like to keep in secure medium so when the GBP£ dies on it's arse, my wealth isn't with it.
Either which way, precious metals are the way. Gold is easier to trade, silver's better for small amounts, copper is great for a base level of commerce since i' worth quite a bit. Funny really that the ld currencies all used gold, silver and copper (or bronze, granted). I think we may even move back to the Gold standard when this recession really starts (you think it's been bad already? Wait some).
A gold-backed coinage might be less convenient since the Govt. have to store all that gold and there's a finite amount of it. But it sure beats the shit out of paper-money that's worth the cost of paper and ink.
You're missing little, trust me.
That was the lamest list of "easter egg's" I've ever seen. Most of them were minor apps in Ubuntu that just aren't well known. Then there's the telnet of the ASCII star wars movie, hardly an easter egg.
What happened to the famed Excel flight-sim? Or any number or other great jokes.
Not to mention the gratuitous use of shitty videos with the worst narrator in history, who incidentally swallowed the microphone before starting...
I gues this all depends on location...
If it's in the contract you sign with a bank, then fair enough....
I was talking about the ethics of the situation however, not legalities.
On that score though, certainly where I live (Scotland), if you have a parking facility you offer to people under conditions (such as your car being forfeit if you don't pay), you've agreed to a contract by parking there, as long as the sign is clearly visible etc.
So tough shit....
If it's clearly marked on signage that if you park in that spot your car will be impounded, sold etc. then, yeah, you fucked up, tough shit....
If you transfer your money to my account, it's mine. Tough titty on you. If you didn't want me to have it, shouldn't of put it there....
It *could* actually work. We're already seeing natural gestures in touch. If you rig up a camera to watch the facial movements of a user, you could specify various movements to do things. Blink - close tab. Blink twice - close window. Wink with left eye - new tab kinda thing.
Americans speak English? Colour me shocked. I'm honoured by the former colonies finally deciding they should speak English instead of that polyglot mishmash of deliberately misspelled mis-applied words.
Not very worse off at all.
But sadly there starts the slippery slope. If you give your government power over what speech is "hateful" or not, then it is they who decide just how hateful something must be.
Eventually, the more extreme politicians will have their say, and you'll soon find things that are not hateful on that list.
Then people become used to the idea of the list. Sooner or later someone comes along who wants to add their own little viewpoint in there without the "people" standing up and making a fuss. So the more extreme dissenters of government policy get quietly silenced. no one makes a fuss, after all, you've already banned the racists, homophobes and political extremists, so who will miss a few moaning greenpeacers or aclu-types. They could be dangerous, they stand up for terrorists after all. So dissent gets shut down and ever more extreme political power is yielded.
Do it all over society, as I believe is happening in the UK (protest is now illegal without permits, habeus corpus is suspended at will, it's illegal to say some things now), and you end up in a Police State.
I don't like the Neo Nazis. I'd rather they chose not to say what they say. But I will defend, to the death if needs must, their right to say it.
Someday, I might find myself the lone voice of dissension. I'd hope no matter what my views you'd stand up and support my right to say them.
Otherwise, one day *you* might be that lone voice...
Maybe we could fuel it with lightning or something till someone makes a Mr. Fusion......
Yeah. If they fuck up, no biggie really, after all, he's 73.
You brain-damage or kill someone in their 20's though, or worse yet a kid and the lawsuits will be rolling in till they *would* have been in their 70's.
There are things more important than the pretty bits of paper you Americans cling to.
I'd thought the past few months would have shown you this. Profit does not always mean money.
True to a degree. But Leopard's "200 new things" list didn't include some things that are "BIG", and did include the likes of "new default desktop background".
Objective-C 2.0 is a BIG thing (which was mentioned in the list, but not really hyped much). A very big thing. I'd say Leopard is the biggest advance in OS X since the public beta. It's a new way to write programs. Then there's CoreAnimation, which hasn't really seen much usage yet but has the potential to bring about a new way for people to use a GUI. A much richer and graphically "pretty" interface. OK, so it's not an "important" thing to most people but to those of us in the know about UI, it is a Big Thing and not just aero-like eye-candy.
Leopard made OS X much more interesting and appealing to write apps to.
Too bad most users just saw the 3D dock and a new desktop background and thought that was that
I might add they also finally fixed some long-standing glitches. I can finally use the finder to share files safe in the knowledge that if the share goes offline my machine won't just stop.
Looking ahead, Snow Leopard is gonna bring more "big" things under the hood and a new paint job outside. Most people might not even see the changes. But the multi-core optimizing is a pretty big thing....
True. Damned English parties ruin everything.
At least here in Scotland we have the SNP.
Maybe after independence we'll let you have them too. If you ask nicely...
I know you were being facetious, but it really wouldn't surprise me. And, as you may know from watching the sex-scandals of american Republicans (like the anti-sex trade campaigner caught using escorts, or that "gay people shouldn't have any rights" guy caught in the toilets with a cop..), as you can guess, the Conservative party are usually the worst. There's something about being right-wing that lends itself to sexual perversion and scandal.
Oh, sure, Labour, the Lib-Dems, they have their sex scandals, but only the Tories really go that extra mile for front page immortality. Be it toe-sucking David Mellar, another tory MP whom I believe died by strangulation (tights (pantyhose) iirc) they really know where sexual depravity is at.
Maybe that's why they keep trying to ban everything; they know the depths that these things can reach, they've done it!
To be fair, aging half-german (kidding, I don't mind you krauts. At least you're not French) spoilt rich biddy though she is, I'd actually prefer 'Liz to the morons we suffer to call a government. At least we know she would genuinely try to make us better off, since she knows that short of a revolution, she's there for life. Politicians have to be re-elected every 5 years. This should (in theory) be an impetus to make things better. It's not. It's an impetus to do the least amount possible in order to fool enough voters that they're making things better, or in Labour's case, that voting for the other guy would make thing worse.
An autocratic monarch has to do little enough to avoid revolution. But, they get a lifetime to get it right and if they really do care (as many seem to have in the past), they don't have to try and make things work in 5 years, they can take as lon as they need to get it done Even if that means their kids and grandkids. Monarchies are more stable inherently.
Except when you get some insane King, or a revolution.
But in between such occurrences things are groovy.
The only way a democracy could work is one like the Swiss. I think 'net technology could really help here. Imagine everyone being able to vote on key issues, maybe even all issues. Online, from home at a regular time each week. Sure, you risk issue-fication, where most people don't bother except the nutters who really care. But widespread democracy is only really being seen on the net now with the likes of mass polls, And they seem fairly stable.
Is Web 2.0 the future of politics?
The set of circumstances that led to Chernebyl itself may well be extremely unlikely, maybe even impossible, but a similar sized disaster is sadly not.
Just 10 or so years ago, Sizewell had a sizeable near-miss; were it not for good training, procedures and sheer luck, half of southern england would be a bit inhospitable now...
My point i that although I see no major problem with it's use as a backup, nuclear should not ever be the mainstay of an energy policy
Renewables are safe and with the correct investment, practically free (in the extreme long term; it's been estimated that a properly run solar site would cost 1% of its output over a 25 year period). Only problem with them i you need a lot of them, and people need to stop wasting power wily-nily. The days of cheap abundant electricity are coming to a close. You can either have cheap (renewable) or abundant (nuclear). Not both. A combination of the two, with a heavy emphasis on green power over nuclear is what we need; as I said, here we're already on track for 50% green by 2020.
I doubt the US, the world's supposedly "richest" nation is near that yet.
Point of fact, aside from storm damage, I can't remember the last time we had a power cut or a black out. Think the last service-restrictions we saw were in the '70's before I was born.
Perhaps you should think on that...
I disagree on your idea about the 20% being ok.
I think we could, one day run the world on virtually 100% renewable energy.
Here in Scotland we're already on 20%, moving up to 50% by 2020. All it takes is political will and investment of public monies.
OK, so this stupid idea won't work. But there are other production/energy storage ideas that will, hydro, tidal (the rising star, as it were), solar.
I'd be willing to aim for a renewable 90% and a nuclear 10% as a standby for that rare day when the hydrogen/storage is empty, it's cloudy, still and there's no tides.
But whatever we go for on the nuclear/renewable side, something will have to be done, because like it or not, oil and gas will run out. Might not be this year, or this decade or even the next one. Hell, it might last till we're all dead and it's 2100. But it will run out.
Indeed. After all, Chernobyl was in Russia, and everyone knows that any "scientist" from Russia is clearly less intelligent than the thickest high school dropout in America (cough)threemileisland(cough)....
Seriously though, just because Chernobyl is unlikely to occur in the West, or even in Russia these days, it's still a possibility. I think I'd rather get my power from wind turbines and solar, and not live in fear that one day someone cuts one corner to many in the quest to lower costs and I end up glowing in the dark...
Actually, it's usage can't be illegal; all it does is allow you to watch the content available to iPhone users.
Of course you can't save stuff on the iPhone, but the BBC offers these downloads. We just allow you to get them. Kinda like changing your browsers user-agent.
I paid my licence fee, I can tape stuff off the TV. Why the hell do they use DRM when they already allow you access??
Our 3rd party mac app lets you use proxies well, and we're hoping to bring in an integrated VPN..
www.lawrencedudley.co.uk/iplayer