Those figures are allegedly from 2007; the uk.gov web page that they're sourced from isn't there any more - probably because the department concerned has been renamed about three times recently.
If electricity could be generated by smugness, we'd be laughing, but unfortunately it can't.
This program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth.shtml is worth a listen if it gets repeated, if only for the inability of some of the motor show sales guys to answer vaguely technical (sub-GCSE) questions about the "green" cars that they were trying to sell.
Had the misfortune to drive a Mustang for a week or so in the US once (early 90s). It didn't go around corners without extreme persuasion and the roof leaked. It had the same dreadful Ford automatic box that was common in their mid-size cars at the time (3 speeds + dodgy overdrive), and the steering wheel gave the impression that it was connected to the front wheels by a stick of rhubarb.
So Maine have already paid for a it but won't actually be installing (hence no support calls etc.)? Elsewhere, the vast majority of new PCs are sold with it "installed" (even if an XP image is then slapped on either by the vendor or the organisation that bought it).
That's a "disaster" that many businesses would be happy with.
It absolutely prevents the US from introducing tariffs on things like China-produced goods, which is why we are in the current pickle with China.
Surely that's because people in the US chose to buy goods from China rather than made in the US? No-one was forcing people to buy from overseas; they just got better value that way. Why should it be the job of government to tell people what they're allowed to buy and what not?
everyone would own a prius if they could afford to get a new car
They've been making them for the US since 2001 so by your logic the majority of second-hand cars of that age should already be Priuses - except that they're not.
The people running the large car makers (or any large company) aren't idiots - if there had have been a more obvious market gap they'd have filled it. If you think they're wrong you're welcome to have a go yourself, like these people: http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/
I don't know the answer to the question "how many people will really buy electric cars" but suspect that right now it's not many - it's easier for many people to change to something that's a bit smaller and a bit more economical, but still running on regular petrol or diesel.
What TFA doesn't say is why "That station's analog broadcast covers far more ground than its digital signal".
Radio waves don't magically go less far if the information that they carry is digitally encoded rather than analog. Based on FTA broadcast TV in the UK, you do get a more sudden degradation than with analogue, but that happens way after an analogue signal is unwatchable. Where I live I can receive 5 of the 6 multiplexes without problems, even though I'm "officially" out of range of the current low-power transmissions until analogue is finally turned off where I live in 2011.
... unless I explicitly transfer the rights over to them...
Facebook's linked EULA includes:
"... grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise,..."
I suspect that you'd need to prove that either (a) that clause doesn't mean what Valleywag think it does (tricky) or that (b) you were somehow unable to make an informed or free decision and that that invalidates the agreement.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I suspect that (b) would be easier than (a) and that (b) may be easier in some jurisdictions than others.
According to Wikipedia (so it must be true, right?) "Special editions of the Primary and Secondary Phases have been announced by the BBC for release in November 2008. These have, according to the BBC, been given "a thorough clean-up and remaster" by Dirk Maggs. ":
Whilst the summary's nothing more than a troll (as everyone else has said, the ASA isn't a government authority) there is at least one area where it mandates something in this area - website presentation. It's in the "Disability Discrimination Act 1995":
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled personâ"
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
It's usually interpreted as forcing web sites to be compatible with screen readers (used by the blind) and high contrast / large character screen modes (used by the partially sighted).
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone who relied on a screen reader decided to take a service provider who didn't provide an accessible mode to court. If it meant that more sites had a more easily accessible "just the text, please" mode I'd welcome it.
However, I'd be surprised if BW reps weren't able to access data worldwide (given that their web site handles worldwide bookings). Presumably the real answer to "what data was stolen" is "we don't know".
Things weren't all that backwards in the 1980s - in 1984 or 1985 I was certainly able to access online news at university (via some enterprising person's Ceefax server at another university).
Also, it wasn't your typical "bird flies into window not realising that it's there" thing*; it seemed to happen only on ground-level doors and windows with a reflective coating on it.
* we got other birds doing that, blackbirds etc., on the windows without the reflective coating.
I've seen crows repeatedly charge into a (reflective) window thinking that it's another crow attacking them. It's not a "red dot" test, but it shows some lack of self-awareness.
C'mon - the Indy piece has got "press release" written all over it.
Although I doubt whether we'll ever know for sure whether the board game people approached a national as well as the local rag, or whether this is "all a result of Jerome Taylor at the Indy's personal ruthless investigation". Given the Indy's politics it'd would be one of the obvious nationals for a PR person to go after.
The only input is from the two game creators and two potential resellers (with a bit of a juicy conspiracy theory thrown). It's a press release masquerading as journalism, nothing more.
While trolling online can be entertaining, trolling IRL sucks.
What's the difference? It's still a human being "probably just trying to get by in this world", whether they're sat in front of you or 1000 miles away behind a keyboard and screen.
Mail, yes - but I'm not convinced about News. Most of the Googleish spam on there looks like someone's registered an account and spammed like mad on it for a while, before presumably moving onto another account.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask them how they could possibly think that changing words (as opposed to script tags) in emails was a good idea:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-944315.html
It's an old story, but it's the same company.
Whilst that may be a perfectly valid reason to you, the real reason is that the airlines just haven't figured out how to charge for it yet.
They will soon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/sep/25/ryanair.mobilephones
which includes a classic quote from Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary:
"If you want a quiet flight, use another airline."
See, there's this thing called electricity. You get it from wind and solar panels.
Actually, you don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Primary_energy_sources
Those figures are allegedly from 2007; the uk.gov web page that they're sourced from isn't there any more - probably because the department concerned has been renamed about three times recently.
Even the most optimistic target for 2020 only has 20% (or 33% of electricity assuming that transport can't get to 20% by itself):
http://renewableconsultation.berr.gov.uk/consultation/consultation_summary
If electricity could be generated by smugness, we'd be laughing, but unfortunately it can't.
This program:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/costingtheearth.shtml
is worth a listen if it gets repeated, if only for the inability of some of the motor show sales guys to answer vaguely technical (sub-GCSE) questions about the "green" cars that they were trying to sell.
You could consider the Loughborough bike a coal-powered motorcycle, but even then it's not the first:
http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/classics/bike.asp?id=3
Had the misfortune to drive a Mustang for a week or so in the US once (early 90s). It didn't go around corners without extreme persuasion and the roof leaked. It had the same dreadful Ford automatic box that was common in their mid-size cars at the time (3 speeds + dodgy overdrive), and the steering wheel gave the impression that it was connected to the front wheels by a stick of rhubarb.
Not recommended.
So Maine have already paid for a it but won't actually be installing (hence no support calls etc.)? Elsewhere, the vast majority of new PCs are sold with it "installed" (even if an XP image is then slapped on either by the vendor or the organisation that bought it).
That's a "disaster" that many businesses would be happy with.
It absolutely prevents the US from introducing tariffs on things like China-produced goods, which is why we are in the current pickle with China.
Surely that's because people in the US chose to buy goods from China rather than made in the US? No-one was forcing people to buy from overseas; they just got better value that way. Why should it be the job of government to tell people what they're allowed to buy and what not?
everyone would own a prius if they could afford to get a new car
They've been making them for the US since 2001 so by your logic the majority of second-hand cars of that age should already be Priuses - except that they're not.
The WSJ has September's US figures - it's only in the bottom half of the top 20:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
(and the ytd figures are down)
According to UK full-year 2007 figures, it's not in the top 10 there either:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7174856.stm
The people running the large car makers (or any large company) aren't idiots - if there had have been a more obvious market gap they'd have filled it. If you think they're wrong you're welcome to have a go yourself, like these people:
http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/
I don't know the answer to the question "how many people will really buy electric cars" but suspect that right now it's not many - it's easier for many people to change to something that's a bit smaller and a bit more economical, but still running on regular petrol or diesel.
Back then we just remembered that date as the anniversary of the US-backed coup overthrowing the democratically elected government in Chile.
Of course, the tiobe index is rather limited and inaccurate
I certainly hadn't noticed the large increase in demand for Delphi...
No, the authorities will probably confuse it with another one that they've lost, like this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7602422.stm
What TFA doesn't say is why "That station's analog broadcast covers far more ground than its digital signal".
Radio waves don't magically go less far if the information that they carry is digitally encoded rather than analog. Based on FTA broadcast TV in the UK, you do get a more sudden degradation than with analogue, but that happens way after an analogue signal is unwatchable. Where I live I can receive 5 of the 6 multiplexes without problems, even though I'm "officially" out of range of the current low-power transmissions until analogue is finally turned off where I live in 2011.
Was this some sort of low power test, or what?
Has anyone ever really tested this?
Yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/business/30carbon.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14361282
0.00129 Olympicses.
Certainly, if one doesn't agree, it doesn't make my statement "Troll".
Agreed - but that isn't the way that some people use mod points here (which was the point that I was trying to make).
Probably because there is neither a "-1 disagree" nor a "-1 polemic without citations" mod option.
... unless I explicitly transfer the rights over to them ...
Facebook's linked EULA includes:
"... grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, ..."
I suspect that you'd need to prove that either (a) that clause doesn't mean what Valleywag think it does (tricky) or that (b) you were somehow unable to make an informed or free decision and that that invalidates the agreement.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I suspect that (b) would be easier than (a) and that (b) may be easier in some jurisdictions than others.
According to Wikipedia (so it must be true, right?) "Special editions of the Primary and Secondary Phases have been announced by the BBC for release in November 2008. These have, according to the BBC, been given "a thorough clean-up and remaster" by Dirk Maggs. ":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_(radio_series)
If I was a betting man I'd say that once they've sold a pile of them they'll be rebroadcast on Radio 4 or BBC7 some time next year...
Whilst the summary's nothing more than a troll (as everyone else has said, the ASA isn't a government authority) there is at least one area where it mandates something in this area - website presentation. It's in the "Disability Discrimination Act 1995":
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled personâ"
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public;
The link to the text of the law is here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_4#pt3-pb1-l1g19
It's usually interpreted as forcing web sites to be compatible with screen readers (used by the blind) and high contrast / large character screen modes (used by the partially sighted).
It'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone who relied on a screen reader decided to take a service provider who didn't provide an accessible mode to court. If it meant that more sites had a more easily accessible "just the text, please" mode I'd welcome it.
It's worth mentioning that Adobe apparently do have a go at making Flash content potentially accessible:
http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flashplayer/
BW themselves think that Britain is in Europe:
http://www.bestwestern.com/newsroom/factsheet_detail.asp?FactID=4
So that 1312 includes the UK.
However, I'd be surprised if BW reps weren't able to access data worldwide (given that their web site handles worldwide bookings). Presumably the real answer to "what data was stolen" is "we don't know".
Things weren't all that backwards in the 1980s - in 1984 or 1985 I was certainly able to access online news at university (via some enterprising person's Ceefax server at another university).
The quantity of blood involved was a clue...
Also, it wasn't your typical "bird flies into window not realising that it's there" thing*; it seemed to happen only on ground-level doors and windows with a reflective coating on it.
* we got other birds doing that, blackbirds etc., on the windows without the reflective coating.
I've seen crows repeatedly charge into a (reflective) window thinking that it's another crow attacking them. It's not a "red dot" test, but it shows some lack of self-awareness.
C'mon - the Indy piece has got "press release" written all over it.
Although I doubt whether we'll ever know for sure whether the board game people approached a national as well as the local rag, or whether this is "all a result of Jerome Taylor at the Indy's personal ruthless investigation". Given the Indy's politics it'd would be one of the obvious nationals for a PR person to go after.
The only input is from the two game creators and two potential resellers (with a bit of a juicy conspiracy theory thrown). It's a press release masquerading as journalism, nothing more.
While trolling online can be entertaining, trolling IRL sucks.
What's the difference? It's still a human being "probably just trying to get by in this world", whether they're sat in front of you or 1000 miles away behind a keyboard and screen.
Mail, yes - but I'm not convinced about News. Most of the Googleish spam on there looks like someone's registered an account and spammed like mad on it for a while, before presumably moving onto another account.
Exhibit A:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/browse_thread/thread/1a90953ae15922bf#