I would start with a steam engine. Get a basic hobby model and fire it up, explaining what's going on. Then attach a motor/generator to the output shaft and make it do some useful electrical work. Then explain that this is the same basic design that is still powering all their electronic gismos over 2 centuries after steam engines were first employed in industry. Try powering the same load using wind, solar, water.
Have an expedition to the car park. Start up a new car, put a kleenex over the tail pipe and see what you catch. Now do the same with an old clunker and compare the results. Explain why there is a difference and what is used to effect that difference. Move on to clean air regulations if there is time.
Get a pint of oil and find as many everyday objects as you can that are either made of or ultimately powered by the oil. Show how wasteful just burning it is.
Show them how an engine works by getting them to coil wire around a magnet and hook it up to an LED.
Then move onto car engines and show how it's the same idea.
That is NOT an engine, it is a generator. The closest you could get would be a motor, but as you didn't specify a power source, it can't be a motor. A car engine is NOT remotely the same idea. A car engine converts latent energy (in the fuel) into kinetic energy. It may use a generator to power the spark, but you don't need one. A battery works fine for a basic engine, and if it's a diesel, it's unnecessary. Are you suggesting they teach bollocks ?
It reminds me of a CSI episode where they homed in on the perp because her cars drive belts didn't squeal when it was started. Like this was unusual. A properly maintained belt (correct tension and not worn out) does not squeal. Their justification was that mechanics "fix" this by spraying a lubricant on the belt (and therefore it had been serviced very recently). That is not a fix, that is a kludge. (note the D in kludge, it's not a kluge).
Here's an idea of my own. Pick any CSI or Numbers episode and go through each of the logical inconsistencies explaining how and why they are wrong.
It also exploited microsoft systems, and a warning was issued less than 14 hours after it was first spotted. Mitigating the attack was fairly straightforward, and fixes were quickly available and easy to apply. There are windows worms, trojans and viruses still going around that are years old. But you drag up a situation that was resolved nearly a decade ago.
1) We are not running out of land to build houses on. 2) You appear to read too much of the Daily Mail. The official figures for asylum seekers as as follows :
Total applications for asylum Q2 2009 = 6,045. Total people refused asylum in Q2 2009 = 4154. So assuming that the figures are average for the whole year, you are only looking at a total of 7564 successful asylum seekers PER YEAR ! Hardly flooding the country.
Also, the population of the UK in mid 2008 was around 61,383,000. That's 8.5 million less than you quoted. It would take over 1100 years for the "influx" of successful asylum seekers to make up the error in your figures. More people pass through Heathrow in a year (68 million) than actually live in the country. 7564 staying on is hardly significant.
Maybe the problem is the same as always - divide and rule, and you're falling for it.
It's flamebait because you cannot be allowed to own an idea. Or is that too technical for you. Do you suggest that we stop thinking in case we infringe somebody elses brain patterns ? Dickhead ! If you build something, fair enough, we can't copy it. But if we can do what you did without taking the exact same steps you did, then it's fair game. How can you do that if the very idea is protected ! One Click ? FFS we all had one click solutions back in the late 90s. But the "world" didn't like cookies or "invasion of privacy" so it wasn't commercially viable. These days everybody's a data whore. Then big guy Amazon pushes it through because they are too big for the small guy to deal with. But they didn't invent it, they just took advantage. So where do you stand ? Prevent the small guy from realising some invention, or prevent the invention period. Or let the corporations have it by default ?
Do you work for Amazon ?
as I'm here, I may as well say that google are being arseholes here. I run the gmail manager add on in firefox, and I'm pretty sure they didn't need googles approval. It breaks every time gmail updates anyway, so approval means nothing it seems. If the Cyanogen app is displaying googles trademarks, take them out. If google don't like it they can block it from the gmail end. Why stop the market they're pretending to be encouraging ? Somebody didn't pay their dues....
So why don't they just say "bits per second" without any distance spec?
Because 80% of their target market (2 people tested) wanted a really stupid metric. congratulations, they succeeded. Now you have no idea what they have achieved, but the PHB will think it's good, so you'll have to implement it next week.
You are never locked in to activesynch. Ever. I have Xp and WM5 and I've never introduced the two. Yet I run several 3rd party apps and some I've written myself. And I HATE microsoft.
no it doesn't. are you completely stupid ? Copyright is set up to prevent you copying something. the fsf WANT you to be able to copy. So how is abolition of copyright going to prevent you from copying something ? You forget (as do most copyright apologists) that copyright expiration does not deny the erstwhile copyright holder from publishing their own work as well as the general public being able to.
Any more excuses ? It would simply be more like the BSD licence, which IMHO is better anyway. Free is free isn't it ? there is plenty of free stuff within *BSD last time I looked.
Are you a troll ? it's not about free stuff. It's about getting what's owed to us. By law, by agreement, copyright was supposed to be a contract, and it has been turned into a cash cow for rich bastards. We had the other side of that contract, and the government, who were responsible for protecting our side of the contract, have caved in and given away our heritage. We want it back !
THEY called us pirates. We are the recognition of proper copyright terms party. Should we allow the opposition to slag us off and re-designate our objectives, just to swing the vote ? Lies, lies and more lies ? Don't you realise that when you recognise one lie as being valid, you open the floodgates ? Stand up and be counted. If you think copyright is being abused by the incumbents, say so, or forever doom the rest of us. Don't equivocate and hang around at the the outskirts - make your stand. Whichever way you lean.
Guess you need to watch the movie again then. You obviously missed the part where, a) the screen was 3D to start with, he just got rid of the display panel, b) he wrote down the new specs as he went and c) his memory was wiped so that he could not be accused of reverse engineering anything, and could not be tied to the company he did the work for. How many times did you repeat the 8th grade ?
I recently decided to try and validate my years of experience on computers, by taking some courses and getting some proof that I know what I know. But there is a maze of options out there and I needed some help from someone who understood all the options. So I applied to a company called Skills Train (amongst others) for some information on what they could offer in the way of distance learning. I first received a phone call from a sexy sounding woman, whose soothing voice promised me that they were sure they could help, and that they would have an expert call round to my house and discuss the options in person. The alarm bells started ringing right there. But I accepted her offer to see where it would lead.
The next day while driving, I received another phone call, this time from the expert that was assigned to my case. He proceeded to embark on a lengthy sales pitch about the different options they offered, even though I said I was driving and could he call back. He was trying to enrol me on a course as a computer technician, something that I was doing as a business 10 years ago, and for which there is very little market these days, at least not if you want to make a living. I told him I wasn't interested, and was there anything else that was more knowledge based rather than practical. So he then tried to get me interested in web design, something I was also doing commercially 10 years ago. I let him blabber on because it became truly amazing the things I didn't know about computers.
Apparently, HTML (according to this "expert") stands for Hyper Text Multi Lingual ! I laughed and ignored him. He then tried to tell me about a more complex course where if I passed, I could earn 100k working for the National Health Service. Apparently the NHS uses software called SQ and L which only runs on Cisco servers ! At this point I was in danger of crashing, so I told him to put his proposals in the post, and hung up.
Of course, they wanted 1000s of pounds for each of these courses, which could be paid back in "easy instalments" and they could even help find me a job afterwards ! So I am slightly perturbed when ever I see one of their TV ads where they promise the earth to people- earn while you learn - utter shite. If the guy selling the stuff can't even get his shit right, how good are the courses going to be ? He even told me that he had done the web design course and had ended up working for the training company. It saddens me to realise that there are probably many many people enrolled in their stupid schemes, who went there to learn, and are being made to pay for useless dreck.
On another occasion, I applied for a training course as an energy consultant, which exist because of government mandates that require all home being sold to have an energy efficiency report available. Apparently there is a desparate need for these consultants, with unlimited earning potential. So I arranged an interview for the next day, and sat back feeling like I was going somewhere. But me being me, I decided to learn as much as I could before I attended the interview. What I discovered on the internet was that not only was this the worst training company in the whole UK, charging the highest fees and responsible for the most malpractice, but also that the market for the consultants is dead, there are probably 3 times the number of consultants needed already trained and they are mostly out of work ! This company is still pushing this course in the job centres and newspapers. I have complained already, but to no avail. As far as the government is concerned, if you are training, you are not unemployed, and therefore you don't show up on their figures. No matter that you will show up there later, now is all that matters.
You are a prick. Which part of "helped overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government" and "helped Iraq wage war" is the US NOT guilty of ? And what happened when Iraq didn't follow the rules laid out by it's puppet masters ? Look around you fuckface.
Ok, say your right. Let's have the nuclear inspectors in there then. Fair is fair, if Iran can't have nuclear power, neither can the Israelis. Think that's ever going to happen ?
In the same location ??? Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel. God may have promised them a kingdom, but he never delivered.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money. As usual, Uncle Sam sticks his nose in and fucks an entire political region. You obviously don't know the first thing about the subject, how even the US were pissed when the Israelis declared their state (before the agreement was settled with the people whose lands they were taking away). Read a fucking book.
Here's some criticism, you're a wanker. Israel has had nukes for at least 20 years. Israel has consistently been the aggressor in the middle east. Fuck, they had only been formed a few years when they started pushing their borders.
So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?
Conflicting evidence must be resolved before you discard data as worthless. This is a closed system. You may not ignore evidence that contradicts your point of view. While I know The Day After Tomorrow was horse shit, the underlying theory is not. Warming oceans cause changes in currents that circulate heat. If it appears that the ocean is not warming, or the warming is actually localised, then it has to be taken into account. Otherwise you end up thinking the sun goes around the earth, because you've ignored other contradictory evidence. FWIW, the Antarctic is seeing increased build up of ice. It is only the ice shelves that have seen increased break up and melting. You know, the parts that FLOAT !
The NASA Earth Observation site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead ? Sure they say "Though sea ice didn't melt as much in 2009 as it did in the previous two years..." - that is wilfully seeing the pot as half empty. If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant. It's disingenuous and wrong.
For all we know, the year 2000 figures could be at the top of their average band. Alternatively, if it's at the bottom of that band, then it would appear that we are only at most a year away from having minimum levels back at 2000 levels. Surely that would be good ? But the crappy presentation and weasel wording make it impossible to judge. They even order the data labels the wrong way so that 2009 appears lower than 2007.
Yes I know this ice isn't that which is responsible for inundation, but I thought it was worth the rant anyway.
Now you're just being an idiot. Do you learn a subject as it is, or as you would like it to be ? I'd make a pretty good surgeon if it wasn't for all the blood and organs and stuff. Get rid of that and I'll give it a go.
Slashdot Mirror
I would start with a steam engine. Get a basic hobby model and fire it up, explaining what's going on. Then attach a motor/generator to the output shaft and make it do some useful electrical work. Then explain that this is the same basic design that is still powering all their electronic gismos over 2 centuries after steam engines were first employed in industry. Try powering the same load using wind, solar, water.
Have an expedition to the car park. Start up a new car, put a kleenex over the tail pipe and see what you catch. Now do the same with an old clunker and compare the results. Explain why there is a difference and what is used to effect that difference. Move on to clean air regulations if there is time.
Get a pint of oil and find as many everyday objects as you can that are either made of or ultimately powered by the oil. Show how wasteful just burning it is.
That is NOT an engine, it is a generator. The closest you could get would be a motor, but as you didn't specify a power source, it can't be a motor.
A car engine is NOT remotely the same idea. A car engine converts latent energy (in the fuel) into kinetic energy. It may use a generator to power the spark, but you don't need one. A battery works fine for a basic engine, and if it's a diesel, it's unnecessary. Are you suggesting they teach bollocks ?
It reminds me of a CSI episode where they homed in on the perp because her cars drive belts didn't squeal when it was started. Like this was unusual. A properly maintained belt (correct tension and not worn out) does not squeal. Their justification was that mechanics "fix" this by spraying a lubricant on the belt (and therefore it had been serviced very recently). That is not a fix, that is a kludge. (note the D in kludge, it's not a kluge).
Here's an idea of my own. Pick any CSI or Numbers episode and go through each of the logical inconsistencies explaining how and why they are wrong.
How can it be anti-trust if (a) they aren't a monopoly, and (b) they are disabling their own hardware ?
If they caused the ATI card to not function then I could understand it, but a secondary function on their own card ?
It also exploited microsoft systems, and a warning was issued less than 14 hours after it was first spotted. Mitigating the attack was fairly straightforward, and fixes were quickly available and easy to apply. There are windows worms, trojans and viruses still going around that are years old. But you drag up a situation that was resolved nearly a decade ago.
1) We are not running out of land to build houses on.
2) You appear to read too much of the Daily Mail. The official figures for asylum seekers as as follows :
Total applications for asylum Q2 2009 = 6,045.
Total people refused asylum in Q2 2009 = 4154.
So assuming that the figures are average for the whole year, you are only looking at a total of 7564 successful asylum seekers PER YEAR ! Hardly flooding the country.
Also, the population of the UK in mid 2008 was around 61,383,000. That's 8.5 million less than you quoted. It would take over 1100 years for the "influx" of successful asylum seekers to make up the error in your figures. More people pass through Heathrow in a year (68 million) than actually live in the country. 7564 staying on is hardly significant.
Maybe the problem is the same as always - divide and rule, and you're falling for it.
Figures gained from the ICAR site referencing the official Home Office quarterly report.
Population figures from the National Statistics site.
Heathrow figures from the BBC.
It's flamebait because you cannot be allowed to own an idea. Or is that too technical for you. Do you suggest that we stop thinking in case we infringe somebody elses brain patterns ? Dickhead ! If you build something, fair enough, we can't copy it. But if we can do what you did without taking the exact same steps you did, then it's fair game. How can you do that if the very idea is protected ! One Click ? FFS we all had one click solutions back in the late 90s. But the "world" didn't like cookies or "invasion of privacy" so it wasn't commercially viable. These days everybody's a data whore. Then big guy Amazon pushes it through because they are too big for the small guy to deal with. But they didn't invent it, they just took advantage. So where do you stand ? Prevent the small guy from realising some invention, or prevent the invention period. Or let the corporations have it by default ?
....
Do you work for Amazon ?
as I'm here, I may as well say that google are being arseholes here. I run the gmail manager add on in firefox, and I'm pretty sure they didn't need googles approval. It breaks every time gmail updates anyway, so approval means nothing it seems. If the Cyanogen app is displaying googles trademarks, take them out. If google don't like it they can block it from the gmail end. Why stop the market they're pretending to be encouraging ? Somebody didn't pay their dues
Because 80% of their target market (2 people tested) wanted a really stupid metric. congratulations, they succeeded. Now you have no idea what they have achieved, but the PHB will think it's good, so you'll have to implement it next week.
You are never locked in to activesynch. Ever. I have Xp and WM5 and I've never introduced the two. Yet I run several 3rd party apps and some I've written myself. And I HATE microsoft.
no it doesn't. are you completely stupid ? Copyright is set up to prevent you copying something. the fsf WANT you to be able to copy. So how is abolition of copyright going to prevent you from copying something ? You forget (as do most copyright apologists) that copyright expiration does not deny the erstwhile copyright holder from publishing their own work as well as the general public being able to.
Any more excuses ? It would simply be more like the BSD licence, which IMHO is better anyway. Free is free isn't it ? there is plenty of free stuff within *BSD last time I looked.
fuck off troll.
Are you a troll ? it's not about free stuff. It's about getting what's owed to us. By law, by agreement, copyright was supposed to be a contract, and it has been turned into a cash cow for rich bastards. We had the other side of that contract, and the government, who were responsible for protecting our side of the contract, have caved in and given away our heritage. We want it back !
THEY called us pirates. We are the recognition of proper copyright terms party. Should we allow the opposition to slag us off and re-designate our objectives, just to swing the vote ? Lies, lies and more lies ?
Don't you realise that when you recognise one lie as being valid, you open the floodgates ? Stand up and be counted. If you think copyright is being abused by the incumbents, say so, or forever doom the rest of us. Don't equivocate and hang around at the the outskirts - make your stand. Whichever way you lean.
The word is ejecta and you obviously have no idea what's involved here.
Toes ?
Scared of heights are you ?
Guess you need to watch the movie again then. You obviously missed the part where, a) the screen was 3D to start with, he just got rid of the display panel, b) he wrote down the new specs as he went and c) his memory was wiped so that he could not be accused of reverse engineering anything, and could not be tied to the company he did the work for. How many times did you repeat the 8th grade ?
That's ironic because non-subscribers can see the articles in the present, usually sometime before the /. future takes place.
I recently decided to try and validate my years of experience on computers, by taking some courses and getting some proof that I know what I know. But there is a maze of options out there and I needed some help from someone who understood all the options. So I applied to a company called Skills Train (amongst others) for some information on what they could offer in the way of distance learning. I first received a phone call from a sexy sounding woman, whose soothing voice promised me that they were sure they could help, and that they would have an expert call round to my house and discuss the options in person. The alarm bells started ringing right there. But I accepted her offer to see where it would lead.
The next day while driving, I received another phone call, this time from the expert that was assigned to my case. He proceeded to embark on a lengthy sales pitch about the different options they offered, even though I said I was driving and could he call back. He was trying to enrol me on a course as a computer technician, something that I was doing as a business 10 years ago, and for which there is very little market these days, at least not if you want to make a living. I told him I wasn't interested, and was there anything else that was more knowledge based rather than practical. So he then tried to get me interested in web design, something I was also doing commercially 10 years ago. I let him blabber on because it became truly amazing the things I didn't know about computers.
Apparently, HTML (according to this "expert") stands for Hyper Text Multi Lingual ! I laughed and ignored him. He then tried to tell me about a more complex course where if I passed, I could earn 100k working for the National Health Service. Apparently the NHS uses software called SQ and L which only runs on Cisco servers ! At this point I was in danger of crashing, so I told him to put his proposals in the post, and hung up.
Of course, they wanted 1000s of pounds for each of these courses, which could be paid back in "easy instalments" and they could even help find me a job afterwards ! So I am slightly perturbed when ever I see one of their TV ads where they promise the earth to people- earn while you learn - utter shite. If the guy selling the stuff can't even get his shit right, how good are the courses going to be ? He even told me that he had done the web design course and had ended up working for the training company. It saddens me to realise that there are probably many many people enrolled in their stupid schemes, who went there to learn, and are being made to pay for useless dreck.
On another occasion, I applied for a training course as an energy consultant, which exist because of government mandates that require all home being sold to have an energy efficiency report available. Apparently there is a desparate need for these consultants, with unlimited earning potential. So I arranged an interview for the next day, and sat back feeling like I was going somewhere. But me being me, I decided to learn as much as I could before I attended the interview. What I discovered on the internet was that not only was this the worst training company in the whole UK, charging the highest fees and responsible for the most malpractice, but also that the market for the consultants is dead, there are probably 3 times the number of consultants needed already trained and they are mostly out of work ! This company is still pushing this course in the job centres and newspapers. I have complained already, but to no avail. As far as the government is concerned, if you are training, you are not unemployed, and therefore you don't show up on their figures. No matter that you will show up there later, now is all that matters.
You are a prick. Which part of "helped overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government" and "helped Iraq wage war" is the US NOT guilty of ? And what happened when Iraq didn't follow the rules laid out by it's puppet masters ? Look around you fuckface.
Ok, say your right. Let's have the nuclear inspectors in there then. Fair is fair, if Iran can't have nuclear power, neither can the Israelis. Think that's ever going to happen ?
In the same location ??? Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel. God may have promised them a kingdom, but he never delivered.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money. As usual, Uncle Sam sticks his nose in and fucks an entire political region. You obviously don't know the first thing about the subject, how even the US were pissed when the Israelis declared their state (before the agreement was settled with the people whose lands they were taking away). Read a fucking book.
Here's some criticism, you're a wanker. Israel has had nukes for at least 20 years. Israel has consistently been the aggressor in the middle east. Fuck, they had only been formed a few years when they started pushing their borders.
So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?
Conflicting evidence must be resolved before you discard data as worthless. This is a closed system. You may not ignore evidence that contradicts your point of view. While I know The Day After Tomorrow was horse shit, the underlying theory is not. Warming oceans cause changes in currents that circulate heat. If it appears that the ocean is not warming, or the warming is actually localised, then it has to be taken into account. Otherwise you end up thinking the sun goes around the earth, because you've ignored other contradictory evidence. FWIW, the Antarctic is seeing increased build up of ice. It is only the ice shelves that have seen increased break up and melting. You know, the parts that FLOAT !
The NASA Earth Observation site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead ? Sure they say "Though sea ice didn't melt as much in 2009 as it did in the previous two years ..." - that is wilfully seeing the pot as half empty. If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant. It's disingenuous and wrong.
For all we know, the year 2000 figures could be at the top of their average band. Alternatively, if it's at the bottom of that band, then it would appear that we are only at most a year away from having minimum levels back at 2000 levels. Surely that would be good ? But the crappy presentation and weasel wording make it impossible to judge. They even order the data labels the wrong way so that 2009 appears lower than 2007.
Yes I know this ice isn't that which is responsible for inundation, but I thought it was worth the rant anyway.
Except when the next hurricane blows through and takes your property with it. It's still a scam, get it ?
Now you're just being an idiot. Do you learn a subject as it is, or as you would like it to be ? I'd make a pretty good surgeon if it wasn't for all the blood and organs and stuff. Get rid of that and I'll give it a go.