Well he tried , gave away loads of their money to try to get the CAP sorted//scrapped , then what happens .......... France and Ireland both said 'tough' ..... you'd think he would learn wouldnt you - the EU was set up for France's benefit and so was always unlikely to give the EU cash cow a decent review .
The common agricultural policy is exceedingly silly and should be scrapped - it manages to impoverish every state in the union and also at the same time hits poor countries by reducing their food export potential . In a word , mad...
Monday, December 19, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Falluja and phosphorus
Well this one is a little more sinister.
The US admitted that it used phosporus on the citizens of Falluja , and that it is a legal substance.
If my memory serves me right , white phosphorus and a sticking agent is known colloquially as Napalm ?
The UK said it's troops used phosphorus as a smoke screen [ it does burn cloudy], The US stated they used it on insurgents.
methinks the US gov't is being economical with the truth here.
I was seriously worried about the news blackout during the Falluja escapade - see earlier on in this blog [probably titled falluja] as it seemed obvious to me that it had to be a repressive campaign, but I didnt think they'd napalm the city ! [just shoot loads of innocents]
Is it any wonder there is unrest there and emnity towards the yanks ?
I just cannot believe this has happened. The way that politics seems to work in the US is that just before[ maybe a couple of months] there's little rumours that dont seem to go anywhere [the govt covering its tracks hurriedly?], then it comes out big time in the end- remember Al agraib [ok so I cant spell] jail - maybe the Dick Cheney farce was to try to squash interest in this atrocity ?
The US admitted that it used phosporus on the citizens of Falluja , and that it is a legal substance.
If my memory serves me right , white phosphorus and a sticking agent is known colloquially as Napalm ?
The UK said it's troops used phosphorus as a smoke screen [ it does burn cloudy], The US stated they used it on insurgents.
methinks the US gov't is being economical with the truth here.
I was seriously worried about the news blackout during the Falluja escapade - see earlier on in this blog [probably titled falluja] as it seemed obvious to me that it had to be a repressive campaign, but I didnt think they'd napalm the city ! [just shoot loads of innocents]
Is it any wonder there is unrest there and emnity towards the yanks ?
I just cannot believe this has happened. The way that politics seems to work in the US is that just before[ maybe a couple of months] there's little rumours that dont seem to go anywhere [the govt covering its tracks hurriedly?], then it comes out big time in the end- remember Al agraib [ok so I cant spell] jail - maybe the Dick Cheney farce was to try to squash interest in this atrocity ?
Dick Cheney and the yellow cake
I know this is a bit late in chatting about, but lost how to get back on here....
Anyway the story goes that Dick Cheney covered up the fact that Saddam hadn't tried to buy yellow cake from NIgeria and said he had.
He may have done that, but The US was in full cognicance of the facts as it was the UK that 'uncovered' the evidence and the CIA [or whoever] rubbished it and Blair had to back down. It was in the UK media big time when it happened, so I presume it was in the US papers also ?
This is IMO a purely dirty tricks jobbie
Anyway the story goes that Dick Cheney covered up the fact that Saddam hadn't tried to buy yellow cake from NIgeria and said he had.
He may have done that, but The US was in full cognicance of the facts as it was the UK that 'uncovered' the evidence and the CIA [or whoever] rubbished it and Blair had to back down. It was in the UK media big time when it happened, so I presume it was in the US papers also ?
This is IMO a purely dirty tricks jobbie
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Hurricane thoughts update
I haven't looked back at the last post from Katrina, but think I said that the disaster was a once in a hundred years, so shouldnt happen for about the next ten years [increased rate due to global warming].
I was reading why these hurricanes happen, and apparently it's due to the water temperature in the Gulf.
Higher temperatures in the water [ a hurricane requires a temperature of 26C i read] basically mean that the vapour pressure is raised and requires less energy to evaporate the water which is the basic motor for these beasties .
Vapour pressure is NOT a linear function of temperature and a small increment in temperature creates a disproportionate increase in the water's vapour pressure, thus a temperature of 30C would give rise to a much higher destructive force than if it was 26C.
Thus if global warming is happening - and the evidence strongly supports this, then the next time that New Orleans is flooded will be in the next 2 years - look at the temperatures in the UK- its something like 5+ of the highest temperatures recorded have been in the last 10 years. [ this is the prelude to the UK freezing believe it or not- I know it sounds daft but the Gulf stream has not yet been stopped ].
If this is correct then the Kyoto agreement is a waste of time , and something more drastic is urgently needed - its already too late to save bits of Louisiana and Texas. Mr Bush , can you now turn your head to save New York ?
From reports Ive seen in the papers [The Times- not a rag that tends to lie], papers via the government published in the States about Global warming have been consistently doctored to give the impression that it is a phenomenum that *may* or may not be happening- words like 'is' have been changed to 'maybr' and so forth .
I was reading why these hurricanes happen, and apparently it's due to the water temperature in the Gulf.
Higher temperatures in the water [ a hurricane requires a temperature of 26C i read] basically mean that the vapour pressure is raised and requires less energy to evaporate the water which is the basic motor for these beasties .
Vapour pressure is NOT a linear function of temperature and a small increment in temperature creates a disproportionate increase in the water's vapour pressure, thus a temperature of 30C would give rise to a much higher destructive force than if it was 26C.
Thus if global warming is happening - and the evidence strongly supports this, then the next time that New Orleans is flooded will be in the next 2 years - look at the temperatures in the UK- its something like 5+ of the highest temperatures recorded have been in the last 10 years. [ this is the prelude to the UK freezing believe it or not- I know it sounds daft but the Gulf stream has not yet been stopped ].
If this is correct then the Kyoto agreement is a waste of time , and something more drastic is urgently needed - its already too late to save bits of Louisiana and Texas. Mr Bush , can you now turn your head to save New York ?
From reports Ive seen in the papers [The Times- not a rag that tends to lie], papers via the government published in the States about Global warming have been consistently doctored to give the impression that it is a phenomenum that *may* or may not be happening- words like 'is' have been changed to 'maybr' and so forth .
the next flu epidemic ?
There are still periodic news reports about the next flu pandemic- the above report says dozens of people in Indonesia have caught this disease.
This is almost an order of magnitude higher from the last update I read [albeit from a very low base].
Could it be coming at last? Hope not, but I worry about these low level alarm bells from , presumably, the scientific community- they tend to know what they are on about.......
This is almost an order of magnitude higher from the last update I read [albeit from a very low base].
Could it be coming at last? Hope not, but I worry about these low level alarm bells from , presumably, the scientific community- they tend to know what they are on about.......
Friday, September 09, 2005
New Orleans toll
What's with the casualty lists on this disaster?
The official count is about 150 according to our papers with a senator ? saying up to 10,000 - a slight difference you may think.....
Then today our papers reported that 25,000 body bags had been delivered ...
Is the US Govt trying to hide the full extent of the problem, if so it's not doing it very well?
Now it turns out that the guy responsible for drawing up and implementing the damage limitation may have spiced up his CV before he got the job.... oops.....
The whole thing stinks for what is undoubtably the most powerful country on Earth- it should not have been allowed to happen [ the loss of life that is- hurricanes are probably beyond even the USA]
The official count is about 150 according to our papers with a senator ? saying up to 10,000 - a slight difference you may think.....
Then today our papers reported that 25,000 body bags had been delivered ...
Is the US Govt trying to hide the full extent of the problem, if so it's not doing it very well?
Now it turns out that the guy responsible for drawing up and implementing the damage limitation may have spiced up his CV before he got the job.... oops.....
The whole thing stinks for what is undoubtably the most powerful country on Earth- it should not have been allowed to happen [ the loss of life that is- hurricanes are probably beyond even the USA]
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Elephant grass ,shoots and leaves
This is an amazing 'discovery' and needs shouting from the rooftops..........
It's simple and world transforming and will ? happen.
Basically biomass growing suffers from inefficiency usually from the processing required to turn it into useful energy.
This stuff grows very quickly, and is suitable for putting directly into a generating plant, more or less, as is.
Apparently putting 10% of land under grass would generate 10% of that country's power.
Why is this BIG NEWS?
Firstly, most first world countries have an over efficient farming industry which creates surpluses.
This requires subsidies to get rid of. Certainly in the cases of the EU and USA this has led to serious disagreements and had been partly responsible for the latest breakdown in talks over the next GATT agreement. [the rest of the world complain that subsidies distort trade amongst the poorer countries- very true]
In the case of the EU, it has created farm produce that is expensive in the shops and takes 30% ? of the EU budget in subsidies to farmers, which in turn has created serious tensions amongst its' members about possible reform.
Secondly, we can have a 'grass cycle' of power generation
Power made this way is CO2 neutral- the grass fixes CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant, then is released on burning.
Thus we have a chance of reducing CO2 emissions of up to the limits of present agricultural excesses [ and if the first world alters it's diet a little or more land comes under agriculture, more]
It would thus slow down Global Warming at a stroke and at little cost.
Thirdly [and related to the above], Kyoto agreement becomes workable, and the USA could quite easily agree to this.
So, we increase Third World wealth, we cut out farm subsidies [ therefore reduce taxes?] , we reduce CO2 emissions and thereby maybe save Bangladesh,New Orleans etc.
ITS WONDERFUL !
It's simple and world transforming and will ? happen.
Basically biomass growing suffers from inefficiency usually from the processing required to turn it into useful energy.
This stuff grows very quickly, and is suitable for putting directly into a generating plant, more or less, as is.
Apparently putting 10% of land under grass would generate 10% of that country's power.
Why is this BIG NEWS?
Firstly, most first world countries have an over efficient farming industry which creates surpluses.
This requires subsidies to get rid of. Certainly in the cases of the EU and USA this has led to serious disagreements and had been partly responsible for the latest breakdown in talks over the next GATT agreement. [the rest of the world complain that subsidies distort trade amongst the poorer countries- very true]
In the case of the EU, it has created farm produce that is expensive in the shops and takes 30% ? of the EU budget in subsidies to farmers, which in turn has created serious tensions amongst its' members about possible reform.
Secondly, we can have a 'grass cycle' of power generation
Power made this way is CO2 neutral- the grass fixes CO2 from the atmosphere into the plant, then is released on burning.
Thus we have a chance of reducing CO2 emissions of up to the limits of present agricultural excesses [ and if the first world alters it's diet a little or more land comes under agriculture, more]
It would thus slow down Global Warming at a stroke and at little cost.
Thirdly [and related to the above], Kyoto agreement becomes workable, and the USA could quite easily agree to this.
So, we increase Third World wealth, we cut out farm subsidies [ therefore reduce taxes?] , we reduce CO2 emissions and thereby maybe save Bangladesh,New Orleans etc.
ITS WONDERFUL !
Monday, September 05, 2005
New Orleans and the government
I think the population of the USA should be mobilising to do something about this.
A disaster that has been widely publicised as going to happen in books, documetaries and the like as going to create a disaster, seems to have been ignored at the planning stage, as when it happened, the White House seemed to ignore it for about a week, with hardly any food, little policing and basically no help.
Is this what happens when you elect a president with no brain ?
The warnings were issued before it happened, so where were the extra defences erected ?
Lastly, who would position a city with a population approaching a million souls on the seafront, in a hurricane region 20 feet below sea level ?
The loss of life [ estimates done a couple of years ago suggested 20,000 souls] is absolutely appalling and I grieve for them as this should have been totally stoppable, at least in the short term- till the city was evacuated and abandoned in say 2015 or whenever it seemed to becoming too dangerous to live there.
I read 15 years ago? [I've been interested in global warming/man-made catastrophes since 1967] that of many aspects if global warming was to become a reality , one of the consequences would be much more/fiercer hurricanes in the Carribbean . It looks like they may well be correct in which case it could easily happen again within 10 years. Oh, another one was New York freezing up- but that looks like it isn't going to start happening this year [ but the seeds of New York's destruction are already in place- apparently 30% there already and growing quickly]
What did I read in 1967 ? Well, it was that aircraft pollution could cause a thinning of the ozone layer.
Most of the Global problems affecting us today have been known about for many years, it's just that people have chosen to ignore them as it wouldn't affect them before the next election
Please Mr Bush, please, do something about energy useage in that vast country of yours before it becomes too late [ another prediction was that the UK would become largely not too good for life- same as New York, so I am intimately involved as to what happens over there]
A disaster that has been widely publicised as going to happen in books, documetaries and the like as going to create a disaster, seems to have been ignored at the planning stage, as when it happened, the White House seemed to ignore it for about a week, with hardly any food, little policing and basically no help.
Is this what happens when you elect a president with no brain ?
The warnings were issued before it happened, so where were the extra defences erected ?
Lastly, who would position a city with a population approaching a million souls on the seafront, in a hurricane region 20 feet below sea level ?
The loss of life [ estimates done a couple of years ago suggested 20,000 souls] is absolutely appalling and I grieve for them as this should have been totally stoppable, at least in the short term- till the city was evacuated and abandoned in say 2015 or whenever it seemed to becoming too dangerous to live there.
I read 15 years ago? [I've been interested in global warming/man-made catastrophes since 1967] that of many aspects if global warming was to become a reality , one of the consequences would be much more/fiercer hurricanes in the Carribbean . It looks like they may well be correct in which case it could easily happen again within 10 years. Oh, another one was New York freezing up- but that looks like it isn't going to start happening this year [ but the seeds of New York's destruction are already in place- apparently 30% there already and growing quickly]
What did I read in 1967 ? Well, it was that aircraft pollution could cause a thinning of the ozone layer.
Most of the Global problems affecting us today have been known about for many years, it's just that people have chosen to ignore them as it wouldn't affect them before the next election
Please Mr Bush, please, do something about energy useage in that vast country of yours before it becomes too late [ another prediction was that the UK would become largely not too good for life- same as New York, so I am intimately involved as to what happens over there]
internet pornography banning UK
Well, our dear Government is at it again....
This time it is trying to ban violent pornography on the Web.
Firstly, they did this with sex and violence on TV in the 70/80s and this quickly degenerated in everyone's minds [ everyone that is who was against showing sex on TV ] as being interpreted as sex or violence..... That is the first fear I would have on this.
Secondly, there is the definition of sex itself [say in a BDSM sense] when consensual sadism does not necessarily have penetrative sex involved. Thus to be effective this legislation would need to cover all touch between 2 or more people where pain was involved- say that would encompass seeing childbirth on the web at possibly it's most extreme silliness. Mind a lot of sports would also need to be banned- football, rugby to name just two - that'd help the popularity of cricket :)
Thirdly, there is the definition of violence itself. Is spanking violence - must be . Is a comedy where someone throws a saucepan at her partner followed by a make up in bed part of the banned stuff- must be ?
Fourthly- how can they persuade other countries to ban these websites - it would be a huge joke..........
Once again, our dear overlords have done a kneejerk. Why do they always insist on legislation ?
The only way this could be workable is to try to ban non consensual stuff on the web whether its got violence in it or not- but that opens loads of cans of worms........
This time it is trying to ban violent pornography on the Web.
Firstly, they did this with sex and violence on TV in the 70/80s and this quickly degenerated in everyone's minds [ everyone that is who was against showing sex on TV ] as being interpreted as sex or violence..... That is the first fear I would have on this.
Secondly, there is the definition of sex itself [say in a BDSM sense] when consensual sadism does not necessarily have penetrative sex involved. Thus to be effective this legislation would need to cover all touch between 2 or more people where pain was involved- say that would encompass seeing childbirth on the web at possibly it's most extreme silliness. Mind a lot of sports would also need to be banned- football, rugby to name just two - that'd help the popularity of cricket :)
Thirdly, there is the definition of violence itself. Is spanking violence - must be . Is a comedy where someone throws a saucepan at her partner followed by a make up in bed part of the banned stuff- must be ?
Fourthly- how can they persuade other countries to ban these websites - it would be a huge joke..........
Once again, our dear overlords have done a kneejerk. Why do they always insist on legislation ?
The only way this could be workable is to try to ban non consensual stuff on the web whether its got violence in it or not- but that opens loads of cans of worms........
Monday, August 22, 2005
Israel and Gaza
Wow, it's happening.
Forgive my cynicism, but where are they going to rehouse all these political pawns that have been uprooted ?
My guess would be the West Bank ...........
For all Jews that think that their occupying lands are theirs by right , please look at Northern Ireland and the mess we got into there and how long the problems lasted.
Forgive my cynicism, but where are they going to rehouse all these political pawns that have been uprooted ?
My guess would be the West Bank ...........
For all Jews that think that their occupying lands are theirs by right , please look at Northern Ireland and the mess we got into there and how long the problems lasted.
plane noise
I've always thought that the 57 dBA noise limit on overhead planes referred to the plane not giving a 57dBA noise on the ground, and where it exceeded that, then compensation was required to the residents below.
Think I was little simplistic in my assumption there, especially as I've often heard planes at far, far above that level , certainly in Fulham and thereabouts [and just assumed they were flouting the regulations].
The noise level is averaged over a year to ascertain the plane noise level [ I have no idea how they subtract from 'natural sounds' [car noise, fireworks, birdsong etc]
Noise measurements are NOT linear- and the pressure [noise level] doubles every 3 dB.
A noise of 57dBA is about the same as in an office, ie pretty damn quiet and you certainly wouldnt object at that level. I realise that this is now out of date, but Concorde is equivalent to 120 747's in noise terms [ no wonder some countries banned it from overflying ! ].
IMO, this is an absolute disgrace and should be changed say to overhead noise being no more than 70 dB at any time or something like taking into account the frequency of overflys.
Maybe this would be too labour intensive to do, in which case something like 66dB averaged over a peak hour may be easier?
Think I was little simplistic in my assumption there, especially as I've often heard planes at far, far above that level , certainly in Fulham and thereabouts [and just assumed they were flouting the regulations].
The noise level is averaged over a year to ascertain the plane noise level [ I have no idea how they subtract from 'natural sounds' [car noise, fireworks, birdsong etc]
Noise measurements are NOT linear- and the pressure [noise level] doubles every 3 dB.
A noise of 57dBA is about the same as in an office, ie pretty damn quiet and you certainly wouldnt object at that level. I realise that this is now out of date, but Concorde is equivalent to 120 747's in noise terms [ no wonder some countries banned it from overflying ! ].
IMO, this is an absolute disgrace and should be changed say to overhead noise being no more than 70 dB at any time or something like taking into account the frequency of overflys.
Maybe this would be too labour intensive to do, in which case something like 66dB averaged over a peak hour may be easier?
Monday, August 15, 2005
wow Lib dems speak with straight tongue
today a Lib Dem MP? said we should legalise all drugs including heroin !
At first sight- shock, horror !
Think about it, impersonally
there is and always will be , a demand for drugs.
at present this demand is fulfilled by drug dealers. As it is against the law, this demand is reduced, both by people enot wanting to be outside the law [ zilch almost] and also by supply/demand curve, ie the worlds' governments reducing the supply thereby increasing the price [that's all that can happen].
I was buying cannabis in 1975 at £120/ oz (28 grammes). Today the price for top quality stuff [much stronger] is about £100/oz .
In purely economic terms, the worlds' govts have failed totally and they should admit it and face reality.
I do not take nor have ever taken many other recreational drugs so I'm not *too* biased, in fact I reckon heroin is f'ing stupid to use as is coke etc.
BUT..... I think we should legalise ALL drugs and tax them , and use some of the money derived from them to educate all people who may want to use them, so they know the dangers associated with each drug physiological,mentaly and addictiveness.
The way to cut down on drug useage is via knowledge not via criminality
I personally reckon that drug/sex whatever legislation is partly driven by the politicians hope that their kids won't start ..... partial proof : the age of consent seems to drop by 2 years/ generation- ie they reckon that cos they started having sex 2 years before they should, it should be legal for their offspring.
At first sight- shock, horror !
Think about it, impersonally
there is and always will be , a demand for drugs.
at present this demand is fulfilled by drug dealers. As it is against the law, this demand is reduced, both by people enot wanting to be outside the law [ zilch almost] and also by supply/demand curve, ie the worlds' governments reducing the supply thereby increasing the price [that's all that can happen].
I was buying cannabis in 1975 at £120/ oz (28 grammes). Today the price for top quality stuff [much stronger] is about £100/oz .
In purely economic terms, the worlds' govts have failed totally and they should admit it and face reality.
I do not take nor have ever taken many other recreational drugs so I'm not *too* biased, in fact I reckon heroin is f'ing stupid to use as is coke etc.
BUT..... I think we should legalise ALL drugs and tax them , and use some of the money derived from them to educate all people who may want to use them, so they know the dangers associated with each drug physiological,mentaly and addictiveness.
The way to cut down on drug useage is via knowledge not via criminality
I personally reckon that drug/sex whatever legislation is partly driven by the politicians hope that their kids won't start ..... partial proof : the age of consent seems to drop by 2 years/ generation- ie they reckon that cos they started having sex 2 years before they should, it should be legal for their offspring.
Friday, August 12, 2005
longer drinking hours in UK pubs
The Government is to allow longer opening hours in UK pubs- in part to cut down on violence as people won't be thrown onto the streets at the same time anymore.
Finally, it seems, everyone is up in arms as they worry about more drunken violence etc due to more alcohol consumed.
Let us look at the facts.
1. People who want to get drunk in pubs, most can achieve this aim either just through pubs or from night clubs if they need to.
Those few who cannot do that, may drink more.
In a worst case scenario, the other 99.9% of this set will continue to achieve their aim, but will presumably take a little longer [ go out later maybe?]
Thus the Bill must achieve it's primary aim , even if it doesn't achieve it's secondary ideal, to foster *Continental style* boozing.
It is a Law that cannot be abused [ except for more drinking during the week- and increasing throwing sickies maybe- but people can stil do that under present legislation ] and should be welcomed as a superb piece of lateral thinking .
I commend it to he House, and please could its' critics think about it.....
Finally, it seems, everyone is up in arms as they worry about more drunken violence etc due to more alcohol consumed.
Let us look at the facts.
1. People who want to get drunk in pubs, most can achieve this aim either just through pubs or from night clubs if they need to.
Those few who cannot do that, may drink more.
In a worst case scenario, the other 99.9% of this set will continue to achieve their aim, but will presumably take a little longer [ go out later maybe?]
Thus the Bill must achieve it's primary aim , even if it doesn't achieve it's secondary ideal, to foster *Continental style* boozing.
It is a Law that cannot be abused [ except for more drinking during the week- and increasing throwing sickies maybe- but people can stil do that under present legislation ] and should be welcomed as a superb piece of lateral thinking .
I commend it to he House, and please could its' critics think about it.....
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
aint the police WONDERFUL
This is a personal note.....
On 12 july some competitors came to a venue I was working in , looked around and left. Unusual, but acceptable.
On leaving I found my 3 advertising boards I'd erected for the event had gone walkabout. These are £30 each so its a reasonable theft.
The competitors had left a note for each exhibitor asking if they'd like to work with them at an event a cpl weeks hence as well.
So I went to the event and lo and behold my boards were there advertising their show...
Having seen how our intrepd police operate before, I decided to ignore the cops and just retrieve them. As I was doing this, the organiser walks out and calls the cops.
having seen the speed of them managing this [they only took a cpl mins- I decided they hadn't so I did , just to make certain. ]
The Force duly arrived some half hour later, and took verbal statements.
As I hadnt a receipt for the goods at the time [ was at my accountants], he said it was my word against theirs. FAir enough I suppose in Law.
As I was a little irate at his point [I had really lost my rag as these guys knew they'd nicked it and I'd told the cops I just wanted them back- but they were adamant they were theirs] . The thieves then gave a compromise and said if I could produce a receipt on MOnday they'd give them back. Not ideal, but I thought that would allow them to give in gracefully.
On Sunday I found a board of mine from the same batch- and retrieved the receipt and off I went to get my goods back.
One item I've forgotten to mention was that the size of the boards had to be proveable [implicitly via the receipt]
On arriving , we found they'd cut one side of the board to change its shape . Obviously they thought that would be fine, but they'd replaced a fixing rivet with a totally different one where they'd had to cut mine off to adjust the size. The font font size,wording , font spacing strengthening gusset etc were all the same as my board, so it was still obvioulsy mine.
As they still wouldnt part with it [ amidst much swearing curses and other such fun] we returned home and called the cops. As we were now formally asking a complaint against a specific person living at a specific address they said they would come round for a formal statement. FINE
Then they phoned to say that as the theft had taken place in LOndon rather than just outside it [where Id found my property] they'd transferred it to the Metropolitan Police, and Id have to contact them. Why they can't speak to each other I dont know, but it figures.
So I phoned the Met the next day [today]. This is the system for transferring crimes.
Details go to the nick dealing with it
These are transferred to [in my case Southgate- but it could be London wide]
whwich generates a number and then the crime is active again - but it takes days to do that!
So now its back in limbo
Its not the worlds biggest crime, buut I found my stolen property and I want it abck - is it too much to ask ?
On 12 july some competitors came to a venue I was working in , looked around and left. Unusual, but acceptable.
On leaving I found my 3 advertising boards I'd erected for the event had gone walkabout. These are £30 each so its a reasonable theft.
The competitors had left a note for each exhibitor asking if they'd like to work with them at an event a cpl weeks hence as well.
So I went to the event and lo and behold my boards were there advertising their show...
Having seen how our intrepd police operate before, I decided to ignore the cops and just retrieve them. As I was doing this, the organiser walks out and calls the cops.
having seen the speed of them managing this [they only took a cpl mins- I decided they hadn't so I did , just to make certain. ]
The Force duly arrived some half hour later, and took verbal statements.
As I hadnt a receipt for the goods at the time [ was at my accountants], he said it was my word against theirs. FAir enough I suppose in Law.
As I was a little irate at his point [I had really lost my rag as these guys knew they'd nicked it and I'd told the cops I just wanted them back- but they were adamant they were theirs] . The thieves then gave a compromise and said if I could produce a receipt on MOnday they'd give them back. Not ideal, but I thought that would allow them to give in gracefully.
On Sunday I found a board of mine from the same batch- and retrieved the receipt and off I went to get my goods back.
One item I've forgotten to mention was that the size of the boards had to be proveable [implicitly via the receipt]
On arriving , we found they'd cut one side of the board to change its shape . Obviously they thought that would be fine, but they'd replaced a fixing rivet with a totally different one where they'd had to cut mine off to adjust the size. The font font size,wording , font spacing strengthening gusset etc were all the same as my board, so it was still obvioulsy mine.
As they still wouldnt part with it [ amidst much swearing curses and other such fun] we returned home and called the cops. As we were now formally asking a complaint against a specific person living at a specific address they said they would come round for a formal statement. FINE
Then they phoned to say that as the theft had taken place in LOndon rather than just outside it [where Id found my property] they'd transferred it to the Metropolitan Police, and Id have to contact them. Why they can't speak to each other I dont know, but it figures.
So I phoned the Met the next day [today]. This is the system for transferring crimes.
Details go to the nick dealing with it
These are transferred to [in my case Southgate- but it could be London wide]
whwich generates a number and then the crime is active again - but it takes days to do that!
So now its back in limbo
Its not the worlds biggest crime, buut I found my stolen property and I want it abck - is it too much to ask ?
Monday, July 25, 2005
Blair/Eu and the CAP
Our dear sister country France has always defended the CAP [where farmers get protected against competition , the citizens pay through the nose for food and where corruption runs rampant- witness the UK foot and mouth travesty] basically because the government is so scared of the farming lobby .
Good news for France now. I was reading the Sunday Times magazine and there was an article about that country. Stuck in the middle of the article was a couple of statistics. In 1990 France had 1 million farmers, now it has 600,000.
Also most of the dosh given to them goes to the large farmholders and small farms are closing hand over fist apparently.
presumably this means France is getting less euros for it's farmers than it used to ? , but whatever, Mr Chirac please note your farming opposition now has only half of it's members than it had 15 years ago , so maybe you should talk to that nice man Tony Blair
Good news for France now. I was reading the Sunday Times magazine and there was an article about that country. Stuck in the middle of the article was a couple of statistics. In 1990 France had 1 million farmers, now it has 600,000.
Also most of the dosh given to them goes to the large farmholders and small farms are closing hand over fist apparently.
presumably this means France is getting less euros for it's farmers than it used to ? , but whatever, Mr Chirac please note your farming opposition now has only half of it's members than it had 15 years ago , so maybe you should talk to that nice man Tony Blair
Saturday, July 16, 2005
terrorism - the definition-
The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
It's primarily the first sentence that is significant.
"usually intended to influence an audience." is a sort of get-out clause and governments can claim terrorism where it is not intended [so is not really part of the definition].
"noncombatent targets"- a strange word to use- military would be the simple one. During the Second World War, power plants, rail links etc were targetted sometimes in France by clandestine agents. So we did commit terrorism at that time.
Shootings of some Palestinians come under this category also. I was thinking that the above definition was good till I saw that phrase 'clandestine agents'.
Mind I have been wondering how to get a definition of terrorism for ages, but without implicating other countries, so I'm quite glad that the official one doesn't do that either.
Notwithstanding the above caveats, it's good that we have a working definition- let's hope we dont commit terrorism whilst working against it ?........ The term 'clandestine agents' sort of says 'maybe,maybe not'
—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
It's primarily the first sentence that is significant.
"usually intended to influence an audience." is a sort of get-out clause and governments can claim terrorism where it is not intended [so is not really part of the definition].
"noncombatent targets"- a strange word to use- military would be the simple one. During the Second World War, power plants, rail links etc were targetted sometimes in France by clandestine agents. So we did commit terrorism at that time.
Shootings of some Palestinians come under this category also. I was thinking that the above definition was good till I saw that phrase 'clandestine agents'.
Mind I have been wondering how to get a definition of terrorism for ages, but without implicating other countries, so I'm quite glad that the official one doesn't do that either.
Notwithstanding the above caveats, it's good that we have a working definition- let's hope we dont commit terrorism whilst working against it ?........ The term 'clandestine agents' sort of says 'maybe,maybe not'
Friday, July 15, 2005
Terrorism - a query
This bit I do not understand:
Two parts of the Koran
a) you shall not take your own life
b) you shall not take other lives
There are caveats about 'enemies', however.
Islamic Holy guys can decree who is an enemy , and this is how the troubles started, firstly with Israel [I'm leaving it open whether it pre 1967 /post or both] and then with Saudi clerics preaching the States was the Great Satan [years ago -but may have been until recently for all I know]
My query is this: if the clerics get it wrong and a muslim 'goes to war' and dies, what are the consequences for that guy in Koran terms- does he get 'acquitted' or is he damned ? Presumably the cleric gets his come-uppance ?
It might sound facile, but could raise a few queries in the mind of a potential terrorist.
HM government is planning to raise a few new laws on terrorism, namely planning/incitement . I still can't seem to find a true legal definition of a terrorist, though , so this law if it comes about is going to have a HUGE loophole in it for future uses...........
Two parts of the Koran
a) you shall not take your own life
b) you shall not take other lives
There are caveats about 'enemies', however.
Islamic Holy guys can decree who is an enemy , and this is how the troubles started, firstly with Israel [I'm leaving it open whether it pre 1967 /post or both] and then with Saudi clerics preaching the States was the Great Satan [years ago -but may have been until recently for all I know]
My query is this: if the clerics get it wrong and a muslim 'goes to war' and dies, what are the consequences for that guy in Koran terms- does he get 'acquitted' or is he damned ? Presumably the cleric gets his come-uppance ?
It might sound facile, but could raise a few queries in the mind of a potential terrorist.
HM government is planning to raise a few new laws on terrorism, namely planning/incitement . I still can't seem to find a true legal definition of a terrorist, though , so this law if it comes about is going to have a HUGE loophole in it for future uses...........
Thursday, July 14, 2005
London Bombings overheard comment
This is a straight overheard comment.
I was cruising in a predominantely US passenger {US} liner when the atrocity occurred.
Obviously there were lots of discussions, but one comment on a table behind me was 'Well that'll hopefuly finally get the Brits angry' [or words to that effect].
This one I cant understand- do Brits come across in the States as 'stiff upper lip', 'wimps' or what?
We've been having terrorist atrocities in the UK for years, partly financed by US donations, so what are they getting at ?
Ok- off my soapbox now and back to straight 'reports' from now on
I was cruising in a predominantely US passenger {US} liner when the atrocity occurred.
Obviously there were lots of discussions, but one comment on a table behind me was 'Well that'll hopefuly finally get the Brits angry' [or words to that effect].
This one I cant understand- do Brits come across in the States as 'stiff upper lip', 'wimps' or what?
We've been having terrorist atrocities in the UK for years, partly financed by US donations, so what are they getting at ?
Ok- off my soapbox now and back to straight 'reports' from now on
Friday, June 24, 2005
President Blair - WOW
Firstly Chirac tried to diss Blair by saying he should renegotiate the UK rebate.
This rebate is somehow attached to farm output/farmed goods imported - not 100% sure how.
Anyway,with loads more countries becomng part of the EU, our rebate was about to increase by 2/3 from £3B, to £5,000,000,000 an not insubstantial lump, so other countries were keen on us doing the *decent thing*. To be honest the staus quo was going to be ludicrous, poor countries join the EU, one rich country [UK] gets richer because of it- mind its just like the EU!
They even tried reasoning with us, by allowing us to keep infinitum our last year's rebate amount into the future. Blair was having none of it.
Next he manages to get other countries on our side agreeing that the agricultural dumping/overpaying/fraudulent system we have should be overthrown .
I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but it's just amazing that France may have to accept that it should pay it's fair share of the bureaucracy of the EU. [ its the main reason for the CAP [common agricultul policy] .
And we'd have to give up our rebate [ but we wouldnt need it then, so fine- the EU budget would drop by over 60%]
Africa and other really poor nations could start ,hopefully, to enrich themselves with agricultural exports.
The EU could perhaps turn towards stamping out the endemic corruption in its running.
I know I've just slung this in, but I may get round to it in a later posting....
This rebate is somehow attached to farm output/farmed goods imported - not 100% sure how.
Anyway,with loads more countries becomng part of the EU, our rebate was about to increase by 2/3 from £3B, to £5,000,000,000 an not insubstantial lump, so other countries were keen on us doing the *decent thing*. To be honest the staus quo was going to be ludicrous, poor countries join the EU, one rich country [UK] gets richer because of it- mind its just like the EU!
They even tried reasoning with us, by allowing us to keep infinitum our last year's rebate amount into the future. Blair was having none of it.
Next he manages to get other countries on our side agreeing that the agricultural dumping/overpaying/fraudulent system we have should be overthrown .
I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but it's just amazing that France may have to accept that it should pay it's fair share of the bureaucracy of the EU. [ its the main reason for the CAP [common agricultul policy] .
And we'd have to give up our rebate [ but we wouldnt need it then, so fine- the EU budget would drop by over 60%]
Africa and other really poor nations could start ,hopefully, to enrich themselves with agricultural exports.
The EU could perhaps turn towards stamping out the endemic corruption in its running.
I know I've just slung this in, but I may get round to it in a later posting....
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
memorable goldfish
I've always been sceptical of the 'goldfish has a 20 second memory' claim which apparently ws proved by experiment.
Having recently moved house and 'inherited' a pond which we stocked with a few goldfish to see the quality of the water, I have the following observations.
As there were only 5 of them and it was just to check the water quality, we didnt feed them.
They thrived ,ok there were quite a few tadpoles and the pond is reasonable size 12m3 ish , but that doesn't smack of amnesiac hunters to me
So someone else bought some more. The first few times we put food on the surface, zilch , they stayed in hiding or zipped about. Then they started to know that when they see someone and stuff goesonto the surface that means GRUB UP.
So I feel that the experiment that was done years ago , must have been done with a psychotic goldfish [ if it was a goldfish that had been kept in a small bowl, I'm not that surprised either ]
Having recently moved house and 'inherited' a pond which we stocked with a few goldfish to see the quality of the water, I have the following observations.
As there were only 5 of them and it was just to check the water quality, we didnt feed them.
They thrived ,ok there were quite a few tadpoles and the pond is reasonable size 12m3 ish , but that doesn't smack of amnesiac hunters to me
So someone else bought some more. The first few times we put food on the surface, zilch , they stayed in hiding or zipped about. Then they started to know that when they see someone and stuff goesonto the surface that means GRUB UP.
So I feel that the experiment that was done years ago , must have been done with a psychotic goldfish [ if it was a goldfish that had been kept in a small bowl, I'm not that surprised either ]
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Ending African poverty?
Wow, what an ambition !
OK let's tune into primarily EU stuff [although the US may be an even worse offender]
Firstly poverty cannot be stopped by aid. It can help a little, but does have the disadvantage of creating a patient..... Oxfam found that out years ago , and now [most ?] its aid is in creating infrastructure for wealh to flow from .
A poor country has to be able to stand on it's own feet and create wealth, from there more will flow.
if we look at what a very poor country has- well, mineral wealth ? Maybe...
Labour - yes
Farmland - yes
It's extremely simplistic, but a VERY poor country needs to be able to use its natural resources , its labour+ land to sell its produce to the world.
Then we have the EU + the US stopping it doing so and instead we spend loads giving aid on one hand and on the other paying for us to stop buying cheap produce [ indirectly I know, but making EU produce cheaper than Africa can make it is the same thing- and flogging off that produce to world markets as well is a doubly whammy to those countries]
It is a no -brainer, it really is.
Pity that France could be considered the same isn't it ?
OK let's tune into primarily EU stuff [although the US may be an even worse offender]
Firstly poverty cannot be stopped by aid. It can help a little, but does have the disadvantage of creating a patient..... Oxfam found that out years ago , and now [most ?] its aid is in creating infrastructure for wealh to flow from .
A poor country has to be able to stand on it's own feet and create wealth, from there more will flow.
if we look at what a very poor country has- well, mineral wealth ? Maybe...
Labour - yes
Farmland - yes
It's extremely simplistic, but a VERY poor country needs to be able to use its natural resources , its labour+ land to sell its produce to the world.
Then we have the EU + the US stopping it doing so and instead we spend loads giving aid on one hand and on the other paying for us to stop buying cheap produce [ indirectly I know, but making EU produce cheaper than Africa can make it is the same thing- and flogging off that produce to world markets as well is a doubly whammy to those countries]
It is a no -brainer, it really is.
Pity that France could be considered the same isn't it ?
Friday, June 03, 2005
Electric Pylons and Illness
The above article shows that there could well be a relationship between power cables and childhood leukaemia, but that its not totally statistically significant. It does say. however that they're sure there is a link.
For diseases , I'm unsure what the word 'significant' actually means, certainly 95.6% but but could be up to 99%. Stats doesnt give a yes or no, just the chances of it being one or the other, 95% being the normal one for saying , YES .
However, this is not the first study on this subject and have read several over the years.
The problem when you are dealing with relatively rare incidents is getting the amount to be observed, which the above study sounded like it didn't.
In stats the more the merrier as the uncertainty drops.
So why not someone combine this and previous studies to get a definite but significant maybe ?
For diseases , I'm unsure what the word 'significant' actually means, certainly 95.6% but but could be up to 99%. Stats doesnt give a yes or no, just the chances of it being one or the other, 95% being the normal one for saying , YES .
However, this is not the first study on this subject and have read several over the years.
The problem when you are dealing with relatively rare incidents is getting the amount to be observed, which the above study sounded like it didn't.
In stats the more the merrier as the uncertainty drops.
So why not someone combine this and previous studies to get a definite but significant maybe ?
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The New Euro Constitution - A suggestion ?
the old new constitution is dead , Long live the next ! or some such words
What we need is to send a colony to Mars and let them work out a method of government for future generations.
they should be allowed to do it at their own pace to create a 'good decent' society of equals.
They should publish this and create a method of changing it as future events unfold .
As it is to rule future society, it should be simple and all encompassing
Failing that happening, look to the past. I hate to say it but the USA is a bit like Mars would be today when their Constitution was written.
It might sound a tad daft, but why re-invent the wheel ?
Check with the US Govt by all means as to maybe 1 item that should be changed a little , then run with it - keeping the amendments if they must, starting from scratch possibly.
The original document was glorious in its simplicity and fairness.
It would not take as long to write either. The problem may be that its too egalitarian for some countries ?
I reckon we'll be waiting a LONG time for it to happen , but would be nice to be wrong about that.
What we need is to send a colony to Mars and let them work out a method of government for future generations.
they should be allowed to do it at their own pace to create a 'good decent' society of equals.
They should publish this and create a method of changing it as future events unfold .
As it is to rule future society, it should be simple and all encompassing
Failing that happening, look to the past. I hate to say it but the USA is a bit like Mars would be today when their Constitution was written.
It might sound a tad daft, but why re-invent the wheel ?
Check with the US Govt by all means as to maybe 1 item that should be changed a little , then run with it - keeping the amendments if they must, starting from scratch possibly.
The original document was glorious in its simplicity and fairness.
It would not take as long to write either. The problem may be that its too egalitarian for some countries ?
I reckon we'll be waiting a LONG time for it to happen , but would be nice to be wrong about that.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Taxing Mcdonalds taxes the imagination
Click the title for the news item , above
Yes its NOT April 1, but Scotland has apparently called for taxing junk food !
The reason : to cut down on mortality, fair enough.
But some MP to actually come out and say it should be taxed beggars the imagination.
I suppose it could *just* be possible if you taxed fat, maybe, but salmon is quite fatty - that margerine spread looks really expensive- Cheese sales would fall to the basement or below probably .
Another way would be to define junk food as any processed goodies. Your frozen chicken breast then becomes more expensive than venison ?
It is totally risible that people that are supposed to represent us can actually say things like that- who knows if they verbally messed up with something important.
Oh they did that about Iraq, I forgot.
Yes its NOT April 1, but Scotland has apparently called for taxing junk food !
The reason : to cut down on mortality, fair enough.
But some MP to actually come out and say it should be taxed beggars the imagination.
I suppose it could *just* be possible if you taxed fat, maybe, but salmon is quite fatty - that margerine spread looks really expensive- Cheese sales would fall to the basement or below probably .
Another way would be to define junk food as any processed goodies. Your frozen chicken breast then becomes more expensive than venison ?
It is totally risible that people that are supposed to represent us can actually say things like that- who knows if they verbally messed up with something important.
Oh they did that about Iraq, I forgot.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
banning smoking in bars/pubs
It looks like its coming, as its in the news again today.
I smoke/am stopping smoking so consider me to be totally neutral on this one .
The arguments for the ban are health and safety ones. basically employees are breathing smoke and being affected by that , so should be protected.
Arguments for are based on people wanting to smoke whilst having a drink.
I have to trust the govt statisticians on the former, so let's say they say correct and it does harm employees.
Health and safety laws tend to go over the top, so maybe they should be slightly toned down in their authority.
Why not allow smoking if the bar staff are also smokers ? Thus they will have no/slightly more adverse affects at work than normal. That would leave everyone happy.
I specified that they had to be smokers , as some guys might allow the health to be affected just for the money [or social life] they would get from that employment
The economic arguments.... Irish bars apparently suffered 7% drop in sales after the ban. Most people assume that means 7% of profits. Wrong
There is no rule about the linkage between the two definitions, but simplifying a bar profits [ and applies to every ? business venture].
A bar has overheads, ie fixed costs. These are rates,franchise or whatever cost is involved from being there, rent of the property/lease costs, water rates,electric standing charges, etc- the list is long, with some costs large and others small, but adding up to a large number.
The business has to earn that number £ before it can make a profit. After that.....
A quick example. A business has a turnover of £1,000,000 and a profit of £100,000 with an overhead of £300,000. It loses 10% of its sales .
Turnover is now £900,000. Overhead is £300,000. Stock costs are thus down by 10% ,ie 60,000 at £540,000. Profit is now £60,000 [subtracting those numbers from £900,000]
Thus we have a profit drop of 40%, based on a 10% decrease in turnover.
i picked those numbers for ease of analysis, but they could easily apply .
If employees are nanny state protected, then some will lose their jobs as some employers either downsize staff numbers or go bust.
I suggest the following. Some people object to the smell of smoke. These would avoid pubs which smoke. Thus there's a huge market out there for smoke free bars.
Lets have a system [if we haven't got it already , but I bet we have somewhere in some law -Tubes ?] where pubs can bar smoking if they wish to, then let the people decide.
As fewer people smoke, more will become smoke free, and everyone is happy !
Blair let the PEOPLE decide about smoking. Your job as a government is to inform not to legislate , certainly on this one.
I think the above is simple and elegant and would work in practise.
So I commend it to the House.
In my opinion , therefore, smoking should be allowed , but any employee , should be vetted so they were not affected by smoke.
If anyone is wondering about my smoking habits, as it sounds a bit wierd above: I am stopping smoking by cutting down gradually and starting later each day. As of today I cannot have tobacco until 21.15 after which I can. Tomorrow the start time becomes 21.45. Friends and doctors have all told me I'm mad, but it does work , basically I think, because my body doesnt need smoke during sleep, so it is fairly quiescent till about an hour before I allow myself to light up [I've compressed the argument, but think about it]. Anyway I should have stopped smoking by Saturday.
I smoke/am stopping smoking so consider me to be totally neutral on this one .
The arguments for the ban are health and safety ones. basically employees are breathing smoke and being affected by that , so should be protected.
Arguments for are based on people wanting to smoke whilst having a drink.
I have to trust the govt statisticians on the former, so let's say they say correct and it does harm employees.
Health and safety laws tend to go over the top, so maybe they should be slightly toned down in their authority.
Why not allow smoking if the bar staff are also smokers ? Thus they will have no/slightly more adverse affects at work than normal. That would leave everyone happy.
I specified that they had to be smokers , as some guys might allow the health to be affected just for the money [or social life] they would get from that employment
The economic arguments.... Irish bars apparently suffered 7% drop in sales after the ban. Most people assume that means 7% of profits. Wrong
There is no rule about the linkage between the two definitions, but simplifying a bar profits [ and applies to every ? business venture].
A bar has overheads, ie fixed costs. These are rates,franchise or whatever cost is involved from being there, rent of the property/lease costs, water rates,electric standing charges, etc- the list is long, with some costs large and others small, but adding up to a large number.
The business has to earn that number £ before it can make a profit. After that.....
A quick example. A business has a turnover of £1,000,000 and a profit of £100,000 with an overhead of £300,000. It loses 10% of its sales .
Turnover is now £900,000. Overhead is £300,000. Stock costs are thus down by 10% ,ie 60,000 at £540,000. Profit is now £60,000 [subtracting those numbers from £900,000]
Thus we have a profit drop of 40%, based on a 10% decrease in turnover.
i picked those numbers for ease of analysis, but they could easily apply .
If employees are nanny state protected, then some will lose their jobs as some employers either downsize staff numbers or go bust.
I suggest the following. Some people object to the smell of smoke. These would avoid pubs which smoke. Thus there's a huge market out there for smoke free bars.
Lets have a system [if we haven't got it already , but I bet we have somewhere in some law -Tubes ?] where pubs can bar smoking if they wish to, then let the people decide.
As fewer people smoke, more will become smoke free, and everyone is happy !
Blair let the PEOPLE decide about smoking. Your job as a government is to inform not to legislate , certainly on this one.
I think the above is simple and elegant and would work in practise.
So I commend it to the House.
In my opinion , therefore, smoking should be allowed , but any employee , should be vetted so they were not affected by smoke.
If anyone is wondering about my smoking habits, as it sounds a bit wierd above: I am stopping smoking by cutting down gradually and starting later each day. As of today I cannot have tobacco until 21.15 after which I can. Tomorrow the start time becomes 21.45. Friends and doctors have all told me I'm mad, but it does work , basically I think, because my body doesnt need smoke during sleep, so it is fairly quiescent till about an hour before I allow myself to light up [I've compressed the argument, but think about it]. Anyway I should have stopped smoking by Saturday.
Monday, May 30, 2005
The French say Non - whoopee
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050530/325/fk2ni.html
So the French people defied their government and rejected the constitutional draft.
Its not too great a surprise.
It's just that there are serious differences between the major countries, and so a hotch potch of compromises was bound to piss off virtually every country , as every country has something to lose by it ! The populace will never vote for a losing something unless there is a seriously gainful side that would entail eventually [ and then probably not - I heard they were thinking of asking turkeys to vote about abolishing Christmas].
So what happens now?
Firstly with France saying 'sod the government' all arguments by other parliaments pro the constitution are now without power.
Secondly, if a major power says non, smaller powers cannot now be coerced. Newcomers will want to say to their governments ' cool it- let's slow this boat down a bit'.
i suspect that most countries will now do a Frenchie and say no.
I suspect most countries that were going to have a referendum will now not bother.
Short term , say till this Tuesday night, France can say ' we'll have another vote till that lot get it right ' and try to barnstorm the Dutch to say yes. if that happens all other referenda can be postponed.
Longer term - say end of the week, they can renegotiate the small point of contention in the document and say they'll have another go. This wouldnt stop the Dutch vote, and so could easily produce a Nein there, which scuppers the others-see short term.
The small point is primarily [I believe] the UK bits we stuck in. This then places Pres Tony as leader to argue against himself ......... He'll reword those items slightly and the funfair can restart. I pesonally dont believe that can happen and so.....
Ditch the whole thing, which is what economists have been saying since it was first published.
Hoorah for the people, who aint policians and can thus see the whole thing in their own selfish way !
So the French people defied their government and rejected the constitutional draft.
Its not too great a surprise.
It's just that there are serious differences between the major countries, and so a hotch potch of compromises was bound to piss off virtually every country , as every country has something to lose by it ! The populace will never vote for a losing something unless there is a seriously gainful side that would entail eventually [ and then probably not - I heard they were thinking of asking turkeys to vote about abolishing Christmas].
So what happens now?
Firstly with France saying 'sod the government' all arguments by other parliaments pro the constitution are now without power.
Secondly, if a major power says non, smaller powers cannot now be coerced. Newcomers will want to say to their governments ' cool it- let's slow this boat down a bit'.
i suspect that most countries will now do a Frenchie and say no.
I suspect most countries that were going to have a referendum will now not bother.
Short term , say till this Tuesday night, France can say ' we'll have another vote till that lot get it right ' and try to barnstorm the Dutch to say yes. if that happens all other referenda can be postponed.
Longer term - say end of the week, they can renegotiate the small point of contention in the document and say they'll have another go. This wouldnt stop the Dutch vote, and so could easily produce a Nein there, which scuppers the others-see short term.
The small point is primarily [I believe] the UK bits we stuck in. This then places Pres Tony as leader to argue against himself ......... He'll reword those items slightly and the funfair can restart. I pesonally dont believe that can happen and so.....
Ditch the whole thing, which is what economists have been saying since it was first published.
Hoorah for the people, who aint policians and can thus see the whole thing in their own selfish way !
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Wow banks gonna give us our money now !
Headline today in the UK-- "banks are to credit accounts on the same day as a cheque is presented"
This is different as to what happens at present whereby banks take the money from the cheque account immediately and then credit the other account with it from 5-7 days later , thus getting LOADS of free dosh.
A major breakthrough.... Unfortunately it isnt going to happen till 2007 - implicitly stating that it will take that long to improve the system.
As an ex programmer I can state that a computer programme [tends- because you can tell it differently] to execute the commands one after the other if the programme would be something like
xaccount:= xaccount- chequeno
yaccount:= yaccount+chequeno
where this would take about 1 billionth of a second and would debit/credit almost immediately.
However the banks built in a delay .
There are 2 levels of difficulty in resolving this.
The first would be to go to a [high level] screen where it would say something like
'what delay for cheques would you like ?' [days]
and typing in zero would do the job
The second and much more difficult would be for a programmer to look for the section of programme which dealt with cheques clearing and hunt for a variable saying something like chequedelay() to find that variable and then search for chequedelay():= 5 and change that to zero.
I personally cannot believe it would be the second variety which could take an hour to do and firmly believe it would be the first [ bearing in mind some banks had already done it some years before].
Thus this delay of 2 years to change a parameter which would take around 2 minutes to do [ being VERY generous] is designed to hoodwink the government.
This change was insisted on by the government [ I seem to remember a few years ago] and so is not *quite* as generous as it first seems.
Whoever in govt is responsible for insisting on this should not be taken in .
*falling on deaf ears* as usual........
I remember a few years ago, the music indusrty being taken to task about the cost of cds. Their breakdown of the costs of a cd was royalty £x, production £4 ? or some such - now you can get free cd in every PC mag and a some newspapers [Sunday Times et al]. If you ask an industry one thing they will reply ,sort of honestly, in their own terms.
Remember the report about supermarkets overcharging ? Lidl has a margin of 2% and Tesco/Sainsbury [at the time] was 4% - and Blair was incensed . It depends on your defintion of margin. there are 2 basic ones: markup ie they bought it for 20p and sold it for 40p, a markup of 100% and : margin [ the ones always quoted by industry] they bought it for 20p sold it for 40p the margin is 20p/40p ie 50%- an instant 50% headline number. If you then add in the cost of selling - warehousing admin, wages etc then for something bought for 20p and sold for 60p [yes why not ? ] the margin could well come down to 4%. Just an example of stats manipulation. In a true market, it dont matter much - but if there is a cartel or complex monopoly then that would be overcharging . I haven't the figures to say one way or t'other but I feel that Tesco et al are ok in that a monopoly is not in force, but it is worrying when you read about them screwing down the prices on suppliers....
Slightly disjointed argument maybe .... but a big subject
This is different as to what happens at present whereby banks take the money from the cheque account immediately and then credit the other account with it from 5-7 days later , thus getting LOADS of free dosh.
A major breakthrough.... Unfortunately it isnt going to happen till 2007 - implicitly stating that it will take that long to improve the system.
As an ex programmer I can state that a computer programme [tends- because you can tell it differently] to execute the commands one after the other if the programme would be something like
xaccount:= xaccount- chequeno
yaccount:= yaccount+chequeno
where this would take about 1 billionth of a second and would debit/credit almost immediately.
However the banks built in a delay .
There are 2 levels of difficulty in resolving this.
The first would be to go to a [high level] screen where it would say something like
'what delay for cheques would you like ?' [days]
and typing in zero would do the job
The second and much more difficult would be for a programmer to look for the section of programme which dealt with cheques clearing and hunt for a variable saying something like chequedelay() to find that variable and then search for chequedelay():= 5 and change that to zero.
I personally cannot believe it would be the second variety which could take an hour to do and firmly believe it would be the first [ bearing in mind some banks had already done it some years before].
Thus this delay of 2 years to change a parameter which would take around 2 minutes to do [ being VERY generous] is designed to hoodwink the government.
This change was insisted on by the government [ I seem to remember a few years ago] and so is not *quite* as generous as it first seems.
Whoever in govt is responsible for insisting on this should not be taken in .
*falling on deaf ears* as usual........
I remember a few years ago, the music indusrty being taken to task about the cost of cds. Their breakdown of the costs of a cd was royalty £x, production £4 ? or some such - now you can get free cd in every PC mag and a some newspapers [Sunday Times et al]. If you ask an industry one thing they will reply ,sort of honestly, in their own terms.
Remember the report about supermarkets overcharging ? Lidl has a margin of 2% and Tesco/Sainsbury [at the time] was 4% - and Blair was incensed . It depends on your defintion of margin. there are 2 basic ones: markup ie they bought it for 20p and sold it for 40p, a markup of 100% and : margin [ the ones always quoted by industry] they bought it for 20p sold it for 40p the margin is 20p/40p ie 50%- an instant 50% headline number. If you then add in the cost of selling - warehousing admin, wages etc then for something bought for 20p and sold for 60p [yes why not ? ] the margin could well come down to 4%. Just an example of stats manipulation. In a true market, it dont matter much - but if there is a cartel or complex monopoly then that would be overcharging . I haven't the figures to say one way or t'other but I feel that Tesco et al are ok in that a monopoly is not in force, but it is worrying when you read about them screwing down the prices on suppliers....
Slightly disjointed argument maybe .... but a big subject
Friday, May 20, 2005
Corruption in China - wow
click on title for news piece
Well after the hoo- hah of Blunkett buying his mistress a train ticket via the Govt purse comes this little snippet - from China though.
All Govt officials must inform the authority if they have a bit on the side [as it were] . How the heck do you police that ?
It's part of drive to cut down on corruption. Apparently a mistress is quite a costly accessory , so if you tell your boss youre having extras they can keep a beady eye on you. Obviously they'll be queuing up to reveal what they're up to won't they ?
The interesting bit of the article is that getting on for a million ! officials were indicted for corruption last year !!!!!
Makes you wonder how many government officials there are in China doesn't it ? Scaling down pro rata that would mean if done in the UK 40,000 govt officials getting prosecuted. Presumably this is not just civil servants but govt employees, but even so , its a HUGE number .......
Makes you realise how corrupt China is !
I believe the death penalty can apply for corruption also .....
Well after the hoo- hah of Blunkett buying his mistress a train ticket via the Govt purse comes this little snippet - from China though.
All Govt officials must inform the authority if they have a bit on the side [as it were] . How the heck do you police that ?
It's part of drive to cut down on corruption. Apparently a mistress is quite a costly accessory , so if you tell your boss youre having extras they can keep a beady eye on you. Obviously they'll be queuing up to reveal what they're up to won't they ?
The interesting bit of the article is that getting on for a million ! officials were indicted for corruption last year !!!!!
Makes you wonder how many government officials there are in China doesn't it ? Scaling down pro rata that would mean if done in the UK 40,000 govt officials getting prosecuted. Presumably this is not just civil servants but govt employees, but even so , its a HUGE number .......
Makes you realise how corrupt China is !
I believe the death penalty can apply for corruption also .....
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
affordable housing in the uk
This is forever in the news, about so many people can't afford their starter homes etc, and there is a law stating that developments over 13 units have to have 25% of 'affordable' homes.
It's a little crass, IMO. developers are there to make money, and will try to make a certain amount per hectare/acre/whatever. The consequence of the law is that developers will try to make more out of the other 75% or bribe the councils [ sorry , but building a school or whatever the council decides is a good compromise actually does] .
It doesn't work- and should be left to the market. if people cant afford to buy/let then the prices will drop until they are able to- it's what a market does after all- and as Maggie Thatcher once said ' you can't buck the market' . So why try , it just distorts the housing scene and because new houses are tending to be upmarket [ how else can builders get that extra profit ? ] it tends to increase house price inflation as well.
It's a little crass, IMO. developers are there to make money, and will try to make a certain amount per hectare/acre/whatever. The consequence of the law is that developers will try to make more out of the other 75% or bribe the councils [ sorry , but building a school or whatever the council decides is a good compromise actually does] .
It doesn't work- and should be left to the market. if people cant afford to buy/let then the prices will drop until they are able to- it's what a market does after all- and as Maggie Thatcher once said ' you can't buck the market' . So why try , it just distorts the housing scene and because new houses are tending to be upmarket [ how else can builders get that extra profit ? ] it tends to increase house price inflation as well.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
iran again
isnt politics wonderful?
The whole world knows that Iran is sitting on OOODDles of oil with a significant % of the world's total.
The whole world knows that a country with effectively free fuel would be insane to use nuclear/coal or other non renewable resource.
The whole world knows Iran is after a nuke
The whole world pretends otherwise for political reasons.
Maybe it's time to sit back and re-appraise the issues at hand here.
On one hand, with current policy Iran should have its facilities zapped with probable loss of civilian life and roughshod violence which would stir up more anti West feelings. What to do with countries that defied the non proliferation treaty has to be the next question of course after that.... if we do nothing then countries know that if they can get to a bomb they are safe---- it then becomes a target for safety from America- so everyone should try for it in which case.
On the other hand let's look at states WITH nukes.
NATO/USSR kept at peace for years
India/Pakistan almost came to blows, now just after testing nukes they are friendly again.
S.Africa is peaceful
Israel for all its belligerence hasn't actually admitted having them and certainly couldnt use them for offence
France treats the US with disdain [ it probably was the first country to realise the above hypothesis when it first developed them]. It's peaceful
S.Korea is a trouble spot- but has it tried to be offensive assuming it has them? - nope - it seems to be arguing that the US should leave it alone.
It sounds frightening, but maybe we should get peaceful and allow states to have nukes if they want them,but subject to safeguards about storage and quantities - maybe with limits - say 5 each would deter any potentially aggressive country.
It sounds even more frightening after saying that, but the other option is given above.
States would thus be about as happy as they could be .... sort of
The only problem is that of its' citizens. If they could get hold of some , they could manufacture a dirty bomb for instance . Don't forget they could do it now anyway, but with nuclear glasnost the following could apply.
All nuclear states could have to put in trace elements to make their materiel accountable. Thus if they had some nicked [ or gave some away god forbid], then it would be traceable if they hadnt declared it stolen in the first instance. Obviously if it was used as a true A bomb then this might not help.
If it was used to make a dirty bomb, then it would.
Thus the originator would be identified and could be dealt with by the UN Security council - which country would veto/vote against such an atrocity ? Not even the USA I would suggest.
It's a mind blowing option, but it should work IMO
The whole world knows that Iran is sitting on OOODDles of oil with a significant % of the world's total.
The whole world knows that a country with effectively free fuel would be insane to use nuclear/coal or other non renewable resource.
The whole world knows Iran is after a nuke
The whole world pretends otherwise for political reasons.
Maybe it's time to sit back and re-appraise the issues at hand here.
On one hand, with current policy Iran should have its facilities zapped with probable loss of civilian life and roughshod violence which would stir up more anti West feelings. What to do with countries that defied the non proliferation treaty has to be the next question of course after that.... if we do nothing then countries know that if they can get to a bomb they are safe---- it then becomes a target for safety from America- so everyone should try for it in which case.
On the other hand let's look at states WITH nukes.
NATO/USSR kept at peace for years
India/Pakistan almost came to blows, now just after testing nukes they are friendly again.
S.Africa is peaceful
Israel for all its belligerence hasn't actually admitted having them and certainly couldnt use them for offence
France treats the US with disdain [ it probably was the first country to realise the above hypothesis when it first developed them]. It's peaceful
S.Korea is a trouble spot- but has it tried to be offensive assuming it has them? - nope - it seems to be arguing that the US should leave it alone.
It sounds frightening, but maybe we should get peaceful and allow states to have nukes if they want them,but subject to safeguards about storage and quantities - maybe with limits - say 5 each would deter any potentially aggressive country.
It sounds even more frightening after saying that, but the other option is given above.
States would thus be about as happy as they could be .... sort of
The only problem is that of its' citizens. If they could get hold of some , they could manufacture a dirty bomb for instance . Don't forget they could do it now anyway, but with nuclear glasnost the following could apply.
All nuclear states could have to put in trace elements to make their materiel accountable. Thus if they had some nicked [ or gave some away god forbid], then it would be traceable if they hadnt declared it stolen in the first instance. Obviously if it was used as a true A bomb then this might not help.
If it was used to make a dirty bomb, then it would.
Thus the originator would be identified and could be dealt with by the UN Security council - which country would veto/vote against such an atrocity ? Not even the USA I would suggest.
It's a mind blowing option, but it should work IMO
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Healing and me
This is a story about me - strange but true-
About last Nov 2004 , My wrist started to hurt when I flexed it. Fair dos - a muscle strain , I hoped.
This got progressively worse until about 4 weeks ago , I was trying to get the car into reverse gear [ it's the type where you have to lift the knob up to allow it to engage ] . The pain was such that I couldnt do it.
I'm the sort of guy who only visits the docs when I've got a reasonable shopping list of ailments to recant, so I hadnt been about this [its just one wrist/hand] and thought it was just arthritis rearing its ugly head again. ( there was a swelling on a bit of the wrist as well)
Years ago , I overheard a conversation between some healers who were talking about how they brought down (insert what you like here) to do healing with, so in desperation I tried it on myself. I've been around healers for years off and on working in the same sort of environment.
Result -Nothing.
The next day my hand felt weird. The pain was a lot less , the swelling was there , but it felt like it was still a serious problem - its hard to describe , but my hand knew there was a load of pain , its just most of it couldnt be felt. Anyway I could drive again.
Over the next couple of weeks, this weirdness feeling and the pain gradually diminished and the swelling went down a bit.
About 2 weeks ago ,it seemed to stabilise and have had no improvement since. I now have 100% of the use of my hand with the odd twinge if I do something a bit suddenly with it [ but its only a slight twinge]. There is still some swelling but its down by about 75% .
That's about it folks. I've not tried this on anyone else- but am thankful it worked but it's strange it wasnt 100 % nor 0% [ i expected zero and a disabled type vehicle ]
About last Nov 2004 , My wrist started to hurt when I flexed it. Fair dos - a muscle strain , I hoped.
This got progressively worse until about 4 weeks ago , I was trying to get the car into reverse gear [ it's the type where you have to lift the knob up to allow it to engage ] . The pain was such that I couldnt do it.
I'm the sort of guy who only visits the docs when I've got a reasonable shopping list of ailments to recant, so I hadnt been about this [its just one wrist/hand] and thought it was just arthritis rearing its ugly head again. ( there was a swelling on a bit of the wrist as well)
Years ago , I overheard a conversation between some healers who were talking about how they brought down (insert what you like here) to do healing with, so in desperation I tried it on myself. I've been around healers for years off and on working in the same sort of environment.
Result -Nothing.
The next day my hand felt weird. The pain was a lot less , the swelling was there , but it felt like it was still a serious problem - its hard to describe , but my hand knew there was a load of pain , its just most of it couldnt be felt. Anyway I could drive again.
Over the next couple of weeks, this weirdness feeling and the pain gradually diminished and the swelling went down a bit.
About 2 weeks ago ,it seemed to stabilise and have had no improvement since. I now have 100% of the use of my hand with the odd twinge if I do something a bit suddenly with it [ but its only a slight twinge]. There is still some swelling but its down by about 75% .
That's about it folks. I've not tried this on anyone else- but am thankful it worked but it's strange it wasnt 100 % nor 0% [ i expected zero and a disabled type vehicle ]
Monday, May 09, 2005
Sellafield glows in the dark again
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1035400.ece
20 Tonnes of uranium solution has leaked in Sellafield apparently enough to make 40 bombs ! With no way of cleaning up , it could be a problem .
Years ago I went to a meeting about nuclear power station building proposal. One of the objections , not denied, was that there had been and was an ongoing leak on one of the storage tanks at Sellafield which they couldnt stop, but as they said, it couldnt get into the water table and was contained within Sellafield, it was ok ...
20 Tonnes is neither a lot nor a little when it comes to storage tanks its only a petrol tanker full, so it is unlikely that an entire tank drained. Yet it would take a small leak a long time to do 20,000 litres [ish]. I think the geiger counters in Sellafield would have noticed it rather quickly .
I wonder if its the same leak - and they have just decided to publicize it ? and possibly downplayed the quantity maybe ? Its a long time ago , but i seem to recall the quantity as 1000 gallons [ 4,500 litres].
20 Tonnes of uranium solution has leaked in Sellafield apparently enough to make 40 bombs ! With no way of cleaning up , it could be a problem .
Years ago I went to a meeting about nuclear power station building proposal. One of the objections , not denied, was that there had been and was an ongoing leak on one of the storage tanks at Sellafield which they couldnt stop, but as they said, it couldnt get into the water table and was contained within Sellafield, it was ok ...
20 Tonnes is neither a lot nor a little when it comes to storage tanks its only a petrol tanker full, so it is unlikely that an entire tank drained. Yet it would take a small leak a long time to do 20,000 litres [ish]. I think the geiger counters in Sellafield would have noticed it rather quickly .
I wonder if its the same leak - and they have just decided to publicize it ? and possibly downplayed the quantity maybe ? Its a long time ago , but i seem to recall the quantity as 1000 gallons [ 4,500 litres].
Saturday, May 07, 2005
blair gets elected
Oh well , not too much of a surprise- it was a one hose race really, so we elected a liar !
Lets hope he's chastened enough not to do it again .
Or is he going to have to turn it over to Brown?
That'd be some prime minister- he doesn't spin - he just covers things up totally - and the media just bleat about it for 1 paragraph now and again ......
He's also pretty left wing . I cant help feeling worried about the future
Lets hope he's chastened enough not to do it again .
Or is he going to have to turn it over to Brown?
That'd be some prime minister- he doesn't spin - he just covers things up totally - and the media just bleat about it for 1 paragraph now and again ......
He's also pretty left wing . I cant help feeling worried about the future
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
UK Elections -did Blair lie to go to war ?
In my mind this one is simple- but has not been addressed.
The public were told that Iraq had WMD and that was threatening UK citizens.
They weren't but were only threatening UK tourists in Malta and a couple of soldiers there.
QED
Sorry about spouting this for the second time, but it does seem a tad obvious.
Being blunt Blair is guilty of murder.
Arguments about it was good to get rid of Saddam are irrelevant, which Blair is spouting . As we have seen from this adventure, it is possible to get the populace of a country accepting [ well only just in this instance- most of the country knew it was wrong ] by using propaganda techniques.
It isn't a huge step for a country that might go to war for huge humanitarian reasons - say another country it didn't like - that had abortion on demand -- wow a country that kills its own infants - gotta be right to stop that...
or allowing gay marriages- going against god's will - another must do..
The above 'might' sound utter tripe, but who knows what moralisings might spring up in the future- invading a sovereign state for whatever reason[ ie Bush wanted to finish what his dad started ] can have horrible future repercussions- and I worry about it.
A final note - those inspectors who weren't allowed to veiw areas that probably had WMD, notably the presidential palaces - Would a dictator or anyone else in power for that reason have bugs/nukes/chemicals (other than Domestos) inside/under/near their house ? I think not . Yet this was part of the pre-pretext for invasion
The public were told that Iraq had WMD and that was threatening UK citizens.
They weren't but were only threatening UK tourists in Malta and a couple of soldiers there.
QED
Sorry about spouting this for the second time, but it does seem a tad obvious.
Being blunt Blair is guilty of murder.
Arguments about it was good to get rid of Saddam are irrelevant, which Blair is spouting . As we have seen from this adventure, it is possible to get the populace of a country accepting [ well only just in this instance- most of the country knew it was wrong ] by using propaganda techniques.
It isn't a huge step for a country that might go to war for huge humanitarian reasons - say another country it didn't like - that had abortion on demand -- wow a country that kills its own infants - gotta be right to stop that...
or allowing gay marriages- going against god's will - another must do..
The above 'might' sound utter tripe, but who knows what moralisings might spring up in the future- invading a sovereign state for whatever reason[ ie Bush wanted to finish what his dad started ] can have horrible future repercussions- and I worry about it.
A final note - those inspectors who weren't allowed to veiw areas that probably had WMD, notably the presidential palaces - Would a dictator or anyone else in power for that reason have bugs/nukes/chemicals (other than Domestos) inside/under/near their house ? I think not . Yet this was part of the pre-pretext for invasion
Sunday, May 01, 2005
blair sorts of admits lying to the nation
Blair is forced into almost admitting that he took us in the UK to war unlawfully by the report showing that he was going to help invade Iraq from the start. His only defence is that he says that we tried repeatedly to get a UN resolution even after that - which doesn't wash at all- as the report effectively says they were gonna try that and if it didn't work then....
Hmm, poor Blair, if it goes badly in the polls over this week , is he gonna start about the Midle East peace map and his part in it, or is he going to be too scared to show the world that he's been twiddling with Bush's politics ?
I can understand his motives - The US was going to blast Iraq, so why not use it to stop most of international terrorism at he same time ? , ie by getting solemn promises from the US as to the price of the UK helping out......
Unfortunately unless the media help him out, this hole is way too deep imo to lie his way out of .
I look forward to the next few days- it does look like Blair is going to have to stand down , although this might not save his party.
If it was the Conservative party that leaked the document, then the timings spot on , by Wednesday the media frenzy should be flaring at its zenith.
~isnt dirty politcs fun :)
Hmm, poor Blair, if it goes badly in the polls over this week , is he gonna start about the Midle East peace map and his part in it, or is he going to be too scared to show the world that he's been twiddling with Bush's politics ?
I can understand his motives - The US was going to blast Iraq, so why not use it to stop most of international terrorism at he same time ? , ie by getting solemn promises from the US as to the price of the UK helping out......
Unfortunately unless the media help him out, this hole is way too deep imo to lie his way out of .
I look forward to the next few days- it does look like Blair is going to have to stand down , although this might not save his party.
If it was the Conservative party that leaked the document, then the timings spot on , by Wednesday the media frenzy should be flaring at its zenith.
~isnt dirty politcs fun :)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
was mankind aquatic ?
I had never realised that the above hypothesis was controversial, so I was surprised to hear a programme about it [Scars of Evolution, Radio 4 18 Apr 2005] narrated/hosted by Attenborough.
Ever since I read Elaine Morgan's book 'Descent of Woman' I have been a firm convert to the theory.
I feel that her title for the book probably caused it to be ignored?
She looked at the physiogomy of the human form and compared it to others
Very quickly her points were:
Man has no fur : relate to hippos etc.
Babies are born with LOADS of fat : essential in colder waters
Babies are born easier in water
Babies have swimming ability almost from minute 1
Humans have control over breathing : dolphins etc
Humans living away from the sea can have iodine deficiency
large brain needs loads of omega 3 fats [ found in aquatic animals]
Head hair is quite long [ easier for babies to grab hold of]
There was quite a lot more , certainly enough to convince most peole who read it - I cant remember all the salient points- its 25 years since I read it.
if you are wondering about the title, it goes as follows.
Animals mate in doggy style. If a female doesnt want sex, she can just walk away [literally]
Aquatic mammals mate face to face Once back on land the female could no longer walk away if she wanted. By this time the vagina had come much more towards the front of the body and the clitoris was a major source of pleasure for the female so face to face sex remained the most popular position
So there you have it, Google "descent of woman" for more info
Ever since I read Elaine Morgan's book 'Descent of Woman' I have been a firm convert to the theory.
I feel that her title for the book probably caused it to be ignored?
She looked at the physiogomy of the human form and compared it to others
Very quickly her points were:
Man has no fur : relate to hippos etc.
Babies are born with LOADS of fat : essential in colder waters
Babies are born easier in water
Babies have swimming ability almost from minute 1
Humans have control over breathing : dolphins etc
Humans living away from the sea can have iodine deficiency
large brain needs loads of omega 3 fats [ found in aquatic animals]
Head hair is quite long [ easier for babies to grab hold of]
There was quite a lot more , certainly enough to convince most peole who read it - I cant remember all the salient points- its 25 years since I read it.
if you are wondering about the title, it goes as follows.
Animals mate in doggy style. If a female doesnt want sex, she can just walk away [literally]
Aquatic mammals mate face to face Once back on land the female could no longer walk away if she wanted. By this time the vagina had come much more towards the front of the body and the clitoris was a major source of pleasure for the female so face to face sex remained the most popular position
So there you have it, Google "descent of woman" for more info
Monday, April 18, 2005
rover demise
It gobsmacks me why there's such an outrage about Rover's demise.
It is common knowledge that a car plant cannot operate at under about 100,000 units a year-Rover made 6,000 ? [ i think - although maybe 12,000].
Rover was given away by BMW for -£500,000,000 so BMW knew it was less than worthless when it did it.
It has operated without much advertising since - and as car manufacturers spend oodles on that, they should know advretising isnt wasting money.
Profitable bits were ringfenced off - ie the directors knew the main manufacturing arm was worthless.
In short , everyone knew it was a serious dog and its only possible useage was to give the owners kudos and money. (and as it unravels, serious notoriety )
Why did the government get involved - it really beggars belief !!!!!!!
It is common knowledge that a car plant cannot operate at under about 100,000 units a year-Rover made 6,000 ? [ i think - although maybe 12,000].
Rover was given away by BMW for -£500,000,000 so BMW knew it was less than worthless when it did it.
It has operated without much advertising since - and as car manufacturers spend oodles on that, they should know advretising isnt wasting money.
Profitable bits were ringfenced off - ie the directors knew the main manufacturing arm was worthless.
In short , everyone knew it was a serious dog and its only possible useage was to give the owners kudos and money. (and as it unravels, serious notoriety )
Why did the government get involved - it really beggars belief !!!!!!!
Retailer misery
I dont know if you were wondering about retailers saying [mostly] how crap the market is and 'losing' money- especially when the market researchers are saying that sales are up ?
This one's obvious- the web market is starting to bite
Expect much more bleating next December till they realise what's up .......
This one's obvious- the web market is starting to bite
Expect much more bleating next December till they realise what's up .......
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Princess Diana Conspiracy theory
Well with Charles and camilla getting spliced I thought I'd pen my thoughts about this.
Its just a couple of facts that are missing from the public info around.
Di was being chased by paparazzi on bikes and cars- fact
Bikes are rather fast and manouverable- fact
Di's car hit effectively a brick wall
To my mind, the reporters must have been either on top of the vehicle when it happened or something must have delayed them.
If delayed, then by how long and by what ?
if on top of the vehicle, they must have seen what happened ....
Paparazzi are fairly notorious in selling stories/photos , so could a secret service agency have silenced them all - if it was them ?
To my simple mind the answer required is 'how long before the crash was spotted' - they must have heard the smash- that car was a right mess.
It does seem very obvious given the above facts. How else could so many witnesses have seen nothing ?
Unless one of the group caused it to happen.........
That would silence all the group - if it was found out there would be a hell of a 'privacy act ' backlash that would stop most of their livelyhood. I think every government in the world would ban 'snooping'
Its a very simple question that needs answering to my mind, and if it was more than a second, the next one is 'why so long?'
Its just a couple of facts that are missing from the public info around.
Di was being chased by paparazzi on bikes and cars- fact
Bikes are rather fast and manouverable- fact
Di's car hit effectively a brick wall
To my mind, the reporters must have been either on top of the vehicle when it happened or something must have delayed them.
If delayed, then by how long and by what ?
if on top of the vehicle, they must have seen what happened ....
Paparazzi are fairly notorious in selling stories/photos , so could a secret service agency have silenced them all - if it was them ?
To my simple mind the answer required is 'how long before the crash was spotted' - they must have heard the smash- that car was a right mess.
It does seem very obvious given the above facts. How else could so many witnesses have seen nothing ?
Unless one of the group caused it to happen.........
That would silence all the group - if it was found out there would be a hell of a 'privacy act ' backlash that would stop most of their livelyhood. I think every government in the world would ban 'snooping'
Its a very simple question that needs answering to my mind, and if it was more than a second, the next one is 'why so long?'
Saturday, March 26, 2005
A future government has secret plans to give us our money back?
So the assistant chairman of the Conservative Party stated that their party had secret plans to cut public spending?
Result : ? He was sacked !
To my small mind, a party that was contemplating reducing taxation should be shouting it from the rooftops not hiding it.
Government is there to keep its citizens safe and not to nanny them - alhough most people seem to have forgotten that.
The more taxes , the poorer the country .
I realise that we need to spend on the NHS etc, but it could be done much more effectively in my opinion
So SHOUT it out loud Tories, you want to give us our money back !
Result : ? He was sacked !
To my small mind, a party that was contemplating reducing taxation should be shouting it from the rooftops not hiding it.
Government is there to keep its citizens safe and not to nanny them - alhough most people seem to have forgotten that.
The more taxes , the poorer the country .
I realise that we need to spend on the NHS etc, but it could be done much more effectively in my opinion
So SHOUT it out loud Tories, you want to give us our money back !
Monday, March 21, 2005
Wow blair is quite bright after all?
The following is intelligent supposition based on human nature and specific peoples' personalities.........
Blair - "Look Mr Bush, we have to sort out Israel/Palestine or this terror stuff just will not go away !"
Bush "Sure- sort out a method and we'll have a look"
Blair goes away and gets his brainboxes to come up with a roadplan.
Blair " THere it is - if you agree to it, we'll come on board into Iraq as an ally"
Bush " Fine- lets go with it "
A war later....... Israel is ignoring it and US ditto after initially running with it.
Blair " But you promised ! "
Bush "You know the Jewish lobby is very powerful in the US Tony, it's so hard to do anything- the only way is after I'm re-elected then I'll have power over them for a while"
Tony leaves, Bush thinks or is told more like ' ok he's right , now how do we try to save Israels face ?'
Bush gets re-elected.
Bush allows Israel to assasinate Arafat.
Bush says that Israel must go with the roadplan [in private]
israel ignores the threat as usual
Bush administration says publicly that the US may not be a loyal ally to Israel in the future
Israel says its pulling back and returning some territory to Palestine
US now starts its diplomacy heavily with Iran
Lots of Middle east countries start doing democratic/peaceful stuff .
Nice boy Tony - pity you could never admit to it in public, but Bush has turned sooo much since the election that it has to be you/EU/others.
Just DO NOT invade Iran PLEASE -
Oh the corollary to the above was a speech to the UK where Tony stated that we had to invade Iraq or else the UN would be seen to be a toothless system, knowing full well that the UN had told Israel that it had to return territory siezed in the 67 war- so we shouldnt believe everything he does say though !
Blair - "Look Mr Bush, we have to sort out Israel/Palestine or this terror stuff just will not go away !"
Bush "Sure- sort out a method and we'll have a look"
Blair goes away and gets his brainboxes to come up with a roadplan.
Blair " THere it is - if you agree to it, we'll come on board into Iraq as an ally"
Bush " Fine- lets go with it "
A war later....... Israel is ignoring it and US ditto after initially running with it.
Blair " But you promised ! "
Bush "You know the Jewish lobby is very powerful in the US Tony, it's so hard to do anything- the only way is after I'm re-elected then I'll have power over them for a while"
Tony leaves, Bush thinks or is told more like ' ok he's right , now how do we try to save Israels face ?'
Bush gets re-elected.
Bush allows Israel to assasinate Arafat.
Bush says that Israel must go with the roadplan [in private]
israel ignores the threat as usual
Bush administration says publicly that the US may not be a loyal ally to Israel in the future
Israel says its pulling back and returning some territory to Palestine
US now starts its diplomacy heavily with Iran
Lots of Middle east countries start doing democratic/peaceful stuff .
Nice boy Tony - pity you could never admit to it in public, but Bush has turned sooo much since the election that it has to be you/EU/others.
Just DO NOT invade Iran PLEASE -
Oh the corollary to the above was a speech to the UK where Tony stated that we had to invade Iraq or else the UN would be seen to be a toothless system, knowing full well that the UN had told Israel that it had to return territory siezed in the 67 war- so we shouldnt believe everything he does say though !
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
How to create lots of consumer wealth in the UK
I wasn't going to try to use personal stuff in here, however......
In trying to move house recently, I noticed that indemnity liability is rife within the housing market, where the slightest error in building regs seems to require insurance up to the value of the house!
Talking to people in the industry and in our 'chain' it appears that about half or moves require this nowadays and at £100-£300 a pop this builds up into a multi billion pound industry [especially as it seems that none of these policies are ever excercised] lots of profits for the banks etc
Why cant the govt just enact a bill saying that if a property has had building on it over 10 years old then the council can do nothing about it ? Dead simple, dead cheap but a major blow to the banks [boo hoo]
Come on Brown show us your stuff !
In trying to move house recently, I noticed that indemnity liability is rife within the housing market, where the slightest error in building regs seems to require insurance up to the value of the house!
Talking to people in the industry and in our 'chain' it appears that about half or moves require this nowadays and at £100-£300 a pop this builds up into a multi billion pound industry [especially as it seems that none of these policies are ever excercised] lots of profits for the banks etc
Why cant the govt just enact a bill saying that if a property has had building on it over 10 years old then the council can do nothing about it ? Dead simple, dead cheap but a major blow to the banks [boo hoo]
Come on Brown show us your stuff !
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
IRA offers to shoot those who killed
The IRA has offered to shoot those responsible for the killing of that guy recently.
That a bunch of (murderers?) could manage to get into peace talks with legitimate governments was amazing, but when they effectively say ' we dont believe in your rule of Law, we believe in our justice system' there's something seriously wrong with their attitude if not their intentions...........
This stinks
All the media seem to be saying is that it shows that the IRA is getting desperate !
That a bunch of (murderers?) could manage to get into peace talks with legitimate governments was amazing, but when they effectively say ' we dont believe in your rule of Law, we believe in our justice system' there's something seriously wrong with their attitude if not their intentions...........
This stinks
All the media seem to be saying is that it shows that the IRA is getting desperate !
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
The world dies of the 'flu ?
I dont know what the news has been like in other countries, but here there has been a lot of scaremongering in the media about the next flu pandemic with speculation as to how many millions could die.
This is on top of ZERO news items of people with bird flu.
Plus different states buying huge quantities of vaccines.
Gets a bit suspicious to my mind
Then today I tuned in to a talk radio show where they were interviewing this guy about the above.......
In essence he stated that people in Vietnam were dying of bird 'flu. Not that many and it wasnt travelling fast nor was it easily transmitted. The fatality rate was 80% , unlike the 1918 Spanish flu which killed 18,000,000 people and had a fatality rate of 1% .
He then went on to say that it could easily combine with a more normal flu type which would give it the 'normal' transmittability rate [ie like wildfire] but the fatality rate would probably drop to 1-10%
OUCH !
Here's hoping the world has a lot of vaccines.
Why is the media saying so much about 'the next pandemic is late' and nothing about 'here it comes' ?
This is on top of ZERO news items of people with bird flu.
Plus different states buying huge quantities of vaccines.
Gets a bit suspicious to my mind
Then today I tuned in to a talk radio show where they were interviewing this guy about the above.......
In essence he stated that people in Vietnam were dying of bird 'flu. Not that many and it wasnt travelling fast nor was it easily transmitted. The fatality rate was 80% , unlike the 1918 Spanish flu which killed 18,000,000 people and had a fatality rate of 1% .
He then went on to say that it could easily combine with a more normal flu type which would give it the 'normal' transmittability rate [ie like wildfire] but the fatality rate would probably drop to 1-10%
OUCH !
Here's hoping the world has a lot of vaccines.
Why is the media saying so much about 'the next pandemic is late' and nothing about 'here it comes' ?
Monday, February 28, 2005
deadly toxins in food
I saw a Horizon TV programme 12? years ago which had identified the increase in colonic and other digestive cancers amongst first+ second world countries and it tried to identify what was causing them. I did write to the BBC to ask them to reshow the programme but they said no [or effectively ]
It looked at alcohol,olive oils, fish, vegetables and quite a few other nourishment items and then investigated if any of these were the culprits as to the increase in cancers associated with rising wealth.
Result : Total zero . The summary of the programme was that no-one knew.....
Then came the result that acrylamides are mutagenic, years later in other research .
To my mind, this seems to fit the facts. People in richer countries tend to eat more meat and chips and crisps.......
Unfortunately, the method of cooking these [usually - meat being an exception sometimes] is to use high temperatures to cook them.
This causes a chemical reaction in the foodstuffs which produce acrylamides.
OOPS.
It has been in the news off and on , but never more than 1 article at a time , ie never a 'shock, horror probe!' type reaction, but is to my mind extremely serious.
Come on scientific community , publish properly and lets get the world eating more healthily !
To any seriously worried reader please note toxins are not deadly in small doses [ you can die of salt [common or garden like you put on your chips ] poisoning. Its when large doses are used or build up when it gets to be a major problem
It looked at alcohol,olive oils, fish, vegetables and quite a few other nourishment items and then investigated if any of these were the culprits as to the increase in cancers associated with rising wealth.
Result : Total zero . The summary of the programme was that no-one knew.....
Then came the result that acrylamides are mutagenic, years later in other research .
To my mind, this seems to fit the facts. People in richer countries tend to eat more meat and chips and crisps.......
Unfortunately, the method of cooking these [usually - meat being an exception sometimes] is to use high temperatures to cook them.
This causes a chemical reaction in the foodstuffs which produce acrylamides.
OOPS.
It has been in the news off and on , but never more than 1 article at a time , ie never a 'shock, horror probe!' type reaction, but is to my mind extremely serious.
Come on scientific community , publish properly and lets get the world eating more healthily !
To any seriously worried reader please note toxins are not deadly in small doses [ you can die of salt [common or garden like you put on your chips ] poisoning. Its when large doses are used or build up when it gets to be a major problem
Saturday, February 19, 2005
My proposal for helping global warming/globalisation of governments
Well, like we don't want global warming , but we sertainhly don't want a lower standard of living either ........ intractable problem?
Countries do not want to help/pay more than others to help- and why should they ?
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=38605
The link says that EU CO2 emissions due to the aviation sector are about 2% of total but that doesnt take NOx emissions into account which are much more 'warming' - so planes are contributing maybe 10% of the total and its growing fast even though fuel use technology is getting better all the time.
people are using flights more due to the cost - its really ridiculously cheap- you can travel 1000 miles for about £2 [$3] since the arrival of low cost airlines. Absolutely crazy prices - I go to Spain and places for almost nothing [if you ignore airport dues].
A simple way would be to tax kerosene. This is hard to do piecemeal country by country, but if we had a global agreement that kerosene was taxed at 10% [or whatever], then this would be easy to do.
This money then would create a global pool which could be earmarked for energy saving schemes throughout the world - say paying Brazil to keep some forests alive- I know it could be abused, but done correctly would give us a little of what we need - MONEY - to help fight this problem.- and obviously slow down the rate of increase in airline traffic a little.
Its such an obvious win/win situation that I commend it to the house . Even Dubyer might go for it as it wouldnt affect car fuel prices !
Countries do not want to help/pay more than others to help- and why should they ?
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=38605
The link says that EU CO2 emissions due to the aviation sector are about 2% of total but that doesnt take NOx emissions into account which are much more 'warming' - so planes are contributing maybe 10% of the total and its growing fast even though fuel use technology is getting better all the time.
people are using flights more due to the cost - its really ridiculously cheap- you can travel 1000 miles for about £2 [$3] since the arrival of low cost airlines. Absolutely crazy prices - I go to Spain and places for almost nothing [if you ignore airport dues].
A simple way would be to tax kerosene. This is hard to do piecemeal country by country, but if we had a global agreement that kerosene was taxed at 10% [or whatever], then this would be easy to do.
This money then would create a global pool which could be earmarked for energy saving schemes throughout the world - say paying Brazil to keep some forests alive- I know it could be abused, but done correctly would give us a little of what we need - MONEY - to help fight this problem.- and obviously slow down the rate of increase in airline traffic a little.
Its such an obvious win/win situation that I commend it to the house . Even Dubyer might go for it as it wouldnt affect car fuel prices !
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
camilla and Prince Charles
Wow.
How can people get excited about this one. 2 guys wanna get married? Well let them get on with it. The media seem to think its not a great event for some reason , but a royal event usually has some glitz about it for some reason, so why not this time ?
I dont care one way or the other , but people of England [ of which I am one], lets be consistent and cheer them on their way !
How can people get excited about this one. 2 guys wanna get married? Well let them get on with it. The media seem to think its not a great event for some reason , but a royal event usually has some glitz about it for some reason, so why not this time ?
I dont care one way or the other , but people of England [ of which I am one], lets be consistent and cheer them on their way !
Monday, February 14, 2005
foxhunting ? why not cockfighting
Guess which first world country still has cockfighting ?.............
Yup- its the good ole US of A !
This 'sport' is still legal in 2 States - one is Louisiana, I forget the other.
Another state that banned it recently is planning on trying to get it back on the 'ok' list by putting muffles on their spikes and giving the cocks a sort of armoured waistcoat !
The idea is that if it's nice and ethically fine like that, then they could show fights during the interval at other 'sporting' events
Unfortunately as opponents of this proposal states - they could and would still try[and sometimes succeed] to peck out the others' eyes.
I guess our huntsmen over here are with you on this one guys - just think how much employment it would have ? :(
Yup- its the good ole US of A !
This 'sport' is still legal in 2 States - one is Louisiana, I forget the other.
Another state that banned it recently is planning on trying to get it back on the 'ok' list by putting muffles on their spikes and giving the cocks a sort of armoured waistcoat !
The idea is that if it's nice and ethically fine like that, then they could show fights during the interval at other 'sporting' events
Unfortunately as opponents of this proposal states - they could and would still try[and sometimes succeed] to peck out the others' eyes.
I guess our huntsmen over here are with you on this one guys - just think how much employment it would have ? :(
Saturday, February 12, 2005
lovely? phrase .. well thanks anyway :)
I have just read this sentence from Terry Pratchett book 'Moving Pictures' ... or was it 'Goin postal' not importanat I guess.....
"inside the mind of every old man is a young man wondering ; 'what happened? ' "
Absolutely glorious
"inside the mind of every old man is a young man wondering ; 'what happened? ' "
Absolutely glorious
Monday, February 07, 2005
Iran again
What with the media interest about invading/not etc, it totally slipped my mind ....
If they have been cheating on the NPT stuff , is this actual justiification to go to war at all - certainly not without 100% UN approval in my opinion.... I think that it would be violating a UN treaty so should be treated soley within the auspices of the UN [ if Im wrong here - I still think the bottom line is identical - it needs world support]
Any argument that Iran might give the 'odd' nuke to unscrupulous people I dont think stands up to much- even after the treatment they got in the IraQ/N war by way of US help in WMD .
Bombing [a] nuclear installation[s] may be justified but a war NOT.
If they have been cheating on the NPT stuff , is this actual justiification to go to war at all - certainly not without 100% UN approval in my opinion.... I think that it would be violating a UN treaty so should be treated soley within the auspices of the UN [ if Im wrong here - I still think the bottom line is identical - it needs world support]
Any argument that Iran might give the 'odd' nuke to unscrupulous people I dont think stands up to much- even after the treatment they got in the IraQ/N war by way of US help in WMD .
Bombing [a] nuclear installation[s] may be justified but a war NOT.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
housing crisis in UK ?what crisis
There's always a crisis of not enough houses being built, or the 'wrong' sort or whatever.
To a simple soul such as myself, it seems it should be relatively simple to sort.
A) if needed , force local government to allot building spaces or whatever the correct phrase is, and allow said authority to rake of some of the windfall profit from that land as a tax.
b) allow the building companies to make money from building ! If this means that the 'social housing' bit of the law needs changing , then so be it........
Problem sorted QED :)
To a simple soul such as myself, it seems it should be relatively simple to sort.
A) if needed , force local government to allot building spaces or whatever the correct phrase is, and allow said authority to rake of some of the windfall profit from that land as a tax.
b) allow the building companies to make money from building ! If this means that the 'social housing' bit of the law needs changing , then so be it........
Problem sorted QED :)
Monday, January 31, 2005
Foxhunting with dogs
I've listened , watched the debate etc about the above with disgust. It's pure lobby power, when the argument is straightforward IMO.
We banned cockfighting and bear baiting because it was cruel to the animals. If foxhunting with dogs is as cruel--- it should be classed the same way.
Chasing a fox until it is totally exhausted then allowing a pack of dogs to kill and effectively eat it- for fun - I think is- and so I agree with the Government in this instance.
A sentence from a character in the Archers last night [a radio farming soap ] was 'hunting vermin is one thing, but making a game of it ? '... which I think summed up most of the arguments.
We banned cockfighting and bear baiting because it was cruel to the animals. If foxhunting with dogs is as cruel--- it should be classed the same way.
Chasing a fox until it is totally exhausted then allowing a pack of dogs to kill and effectively eat it- for fun - I think is- and so I agree with the Government in this instance.
A sentence from a character in the Archers last night [a radio farming soap ] was 'hunting vermin is one thing, but making a game of it ? '... which I think summed up most of the arguments.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Camelford Poisoning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1490142.stm
THe above just says that the 1998 poisoning of 1000s of homes near Camelford in 1998 and has now re-appeared in the News today- basically stating that health problems still affect some of those people poisoned at the time.
The population was poisoned when a tanker sent aluminium sulphate directly into the water supply- and caused quite a bit of attention at the time [surprise ]
However, the media didnt seem to pick up on its possible long term implications of Alzheimers disease- aparently the victims are suffering from short term memory loss and other symptomsof the disease.
The article below is perhaps the most pro aluminium article I've ever read - but maybe its the most subjective.......
http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-156.shtml#alum
I threw my mothers' aluminium pans out years ago .
THe above just says that the 1998 poisoning of 1000s of homes near Camelford in 1998 and has now re-appeared in the News today- basically stating that health problems still affect some of those people poisoned at the time.
The population was poisoned when a tanker sent aluminium sulphate directly into the water supply- and caused quite a bit of attention at the time [surprise ]
However, the media didnt seem to pick up on its possible long term implications of Alzheimers disease- aparently the victims are suffering from short term memory loss and other symptomsof the disease.
The article below is perhaps the most pro aluminium article I've ever read - but maybe its the most subjective.......
http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-156.shtml#alum
I threw my mothers' aluminium pans out years ago .
EU Crazy Laws again
This is about the Competition Act 1998 .
It has several very good parts to it - no cartels , no agreements to not compete in regions etc- which are excellent.
Unfortunately there are a few bits that aren't *quite* so nifty.
It is against the law now, for instance, that different prices can be offered for the same product. This means that it is against the law for price haggling , in say a car boot sale---- and the seller could be fined up to 10% of his turnover !
Or a company negotiating rents on a building , now cannot negotiate !
The above may or may not be true - its certainly down in black and white, but I have complained to the OFT about this one as it affects me .
It has several very good parts to it - no cartels , no agreements to not compete in regions etc- which are excellent.
Unfortunately there are a few bits that aren't *quite* so nifty.
It is against the law now, for instance, that different prices can be offered for the same product. This means that it is against the law for price haggling , in say a car boot sale---- and the seller could be fined up to 10% of his turnover !
Or a company negotiating rents on a building , now cannot negotiate !
The above may or may not be true - its certainly down in black and white, but I have complained to the OFT about this one as it affects me .
Monday, January 24, 2005
Iran Now ?
The papers yesterday mentioned in passing that the war against Iran had already started . Presumably covert stuff or plans .
Its to be hoped that Iran doesnt get Dubya therapy or if it does that the UK stands aside- the world cannot cope with another adventure - its gonna get seriously anti USA .
I can't bring myself to condemn Iran for trying to get some serious ordnance- witness USA treatment of N.Korea and also Israel having a little something aside 'just in case' as it were.
If Israel were to disarm, then that would create a huge peace push for the Middle East. It wont happen , but one can dream !
Its to be hoped that Iran doesnt get Dubya therapy or if it does that the UK stands aside- the world cannot cope with another adventure - its gonna get seriously anti USA .
I can't bring myself to condemn Iran for trying to get some serious ordnance- witness USA treatment of N.Korea and also Israel having a little something aside 'just in case' as it were.
If Israel were to disarm, then that would create a huge peace push for the Middle East. It wont happen , but one can dream !
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Einstein and all that
Cor its Einsteins special aniversary year [relatively speaking].
One thing the papers seem to have latched onto [a tad anyway] is his idea that big bang couldnt have occurred- sort of showing him not to be as bright as he was.
Anyway in deference to my hero- here's my twopennorth- an Einstein vindication...........
Hawking says that time stops when a black hole exists and in his book says that before Big Bang there was nothing. He then goes to show properties of existing black holes in the Universe. Ergo time can exist before Big Bang.
If we use Occams razor and assume certain laws of thermodynamics exist then we can examine prior to that time intellectually.
Lets start with 1. 'matter/energy ' cannot be created or destroyed --- fairly controversial and also because it makes life easier but is not strictly necessary----- 2. The Universe started.
Item 2 is not reall needed but does make it soooo much nicer.
From 2 - the energy level of the Universe must be zero , ie before it started the energy must have been zero.
From NOT 2 - Occams razor..... a zero energy level is so much easier to go back infinitely in time than a positive [or negative ] one .
So far so easy , but thiss flows from the above [ no maths so read on]
Thus the energy of the Universe is Zero at this present time.
Thereby negative energy must exist
matter exists which is a complicated form of energy [ note we know matter is made up from protons/quarks /+ ? hence statement is true]
Matter must have been formed in the past ...... and must be being created now.
Anti matter must have been formed in the past .... and must be created now.
The fact that the Universe is nearly empty implies its not a too common event.
If a lump of space suddenly gets 2 particles, 1 positive the other negative with negative gravity between them, most gets zapped instantly. This would create a maelstrom in the Universe a huge storm doing absolutely NOTHING. However if a certain confirguration occurred in this creation/destruction where the force separating them were so strong that they flew apart quicker than they could be destroyed, we have a method of creating matter.
Thus all matter can be thought of being made of only 2 building blocks each the negative of the other - its simple to think of. Different particles could have different numbers of negative particles . It would probably create some weird properties very close to a block when the negatives may start to pull their weight [as it were].
Anyway, we can now start to build the Universes - they must be pairs [at least virtually- although the one being compressed into the centre may impede the outer one forming].
Without doing maths its difficult to know what happens next- one of 2 things :
1. Then centre block gets bigger and bigger with the negative gravity around it forcing it denser and denser till the blocks just collapse on themselves due to pressure- this would wipe out a significant amount of volume which could cause a huge explosion- Big Bang or
2. More than one positive Universe forms of course and they are atttracted together.
These are HUGE things [about the mass of the Universe ] and when they finally met they would be going at relatively HUGE velocities. Its the sort of thing you dont want to be near when they hit - Would create a HUGE Bang.
When whichever happened - its interesting to note that at the centre of the explosion over time would become a rather large lump of negative energy/mass
Anyway if true ,Einstein would be vindicated.
If true the following predictions would apply.
1.There is absolutely no point in trying to measure the mass of the Universe because its changing - although trying to measure it for other purposes......
2. There is more than one Universe - just statistics.
3. The centre of the Univese is a white hole.
4. The Universe can not end up as pre- big bang lump.
5. Anti gravity exists
6. Quarks are not the smallest entity.
7. Using these negative particles could create some WEIRD+ futuristic industries
8. The speed of light might not be a limit [using 7]
9. To start with anyway the rate of expansion of the Universe could be accelerating - due to the accelerating force from the white hole. We could aslo be getting pulled towards another Univese of course.......
You can comment/email of you want :)
One thing the papers seem to have latched onto [a tad anyway] is his idea that big bang couldnt have occurred- sort of showing him not to be as bright as he was.
Anyway in deference to my hero- here's my twopennorth- an Einstein vindication...........
Hawking says that time stops when a black hole exists and in his book says that before Big Bang there was nothing. He then goes to show properties of existing black holes in the Universe. Ergo time can exist before Big Bang.
If we use Occams razor and assume certain laws of thermodynamics exist then we can examine prior to that time intellectually.
Lets start with 1. 'matter/energy ' cannot be created or destroyed --- fairly controversial and also because it makes life easier but is not strictly necessary----- 2. The Universe started.
Item 2 is not reall needed but does make it soooo much nicer.
From 2 - the energy level of the Universe must be zero , ie before it started the energy must have been zero.
From NOT 2 - Occams razor..... a zero energy level is so much easier to go back infinitely in time than a positive [or negative ] one .
So far so easy , but thiss flows from the above [ no maths so read on]
Thus the energy of the Universe is Zero at this present time.
Thereby negative energy must exist
matter exists which is a complicated form of energy [ note we know matter is made up from protons/quarks /+ ? hence statement is true]
Matter must have been formed in the past ...... and must be being created now.
Anti matter must have been formed in the past .... and must be created now.
The fact that the Universe is nearly empty implies its not a too common event.
If a lump of space suddenly gets 2 particles, 1 positive the other negative with negative gravity between them, most gets zapped instantly. This would create a maelstrom in the Universe a huge storm doing absolutely NOTHING. However if a certain confirguration occurred in this creation/destruction where the force separating them were so strong that they flew apart quicker than they could be destroyed, we have a method of creating matter.
Thus all matter can be thought of being made of only 2 building blocks each the negative of the other - its simple to think of. Different particles could have different numbers of negative particles . It would probably create some weird properties very close to a block when the negatives may start to pull their weight [as it were].
Anyway, we can now start to build the Universes - they must be pairs [at least virtually- although the one being compressed into the centre may impede the outer one forming].
Without doing maths its difficult to know what happens next- one of 2 things :
1. Then centre block gets bigger and bigger with the negative gravity around it forcing it denser and denser till the blocks just collapse on themselves due to pressure- this would wipe out a significant amount of volume which could cause a huge explosion- Big Bang or
2. More than one positive Universe forms of course and they are atttracted together.
These are HUGE things [about the mass of the Universe ] and when they finally met they would be going at relatively HUGE velocities. Its the sort of thing you dont want to be near when they hit - Would create a HUGE Bang.
When whichever happened - its interesting to note that at the centre of the explosion over time would become a rather large lump of negative energy/mass
Anyway if true ,Einstein would be vindicated.
If true the following predictions would apply.
1.There is absolutely no point in trying to measure the mass of the Universe because its changing - although trying to measure it for other purposes......
2. There is more than one Universe - just statistics.
3. The centre of the Univese is a white hole.
4. The Universe can not end up as pre- big bang lump.
5. Anti gravity exists
6. Quarks are not the smallest entity.
7. Using these negative particles could create some WEIRD+ futuristic industries
8. The speed of light might not be a limit [using 7]
9. To start with anyway the rate of expansion of the Universe could be accelerating - due to the accelerating force from the white hole. We could aslo be getting pulled towards another Univese of course.......
You can comment/email of you want :)
Monday, January 17, 2005
gordon brown's Miracle
I dont know how he does it, but he pulls the wool over journalists' eyes so easily.
He's managed to do this one for years and I keep reading about his Golden Rule and whether he is gonna keep to it that its really laughable.
I apologise for not drawing a graph to illustrate this joke, but it is quite easy to see without going into heavy maths.
He states that over a 6 year period [ish - its meant to be vague so he can fudge -- but that's another story] that he'll only nick enough of our money to pay for investment and will not nick our money to get the government into more debt.
That said he has a minor fudge cos he says that he wont borrow more than 40% of our GDP - ie the rule is worthless on that front .......
Anyway what did he do ?
At the start of his 'ship he stuck to the Tories spending plans , this kept borrowing down for about 5 years ? and enabled him to pay back debts.
Thus hes quids in at this point........
Then he decided to stick to his promise , ie to spend up to his limit. Fair enough and everyone knows about this - and is the cause of all the discussion.
As he has been accelerating his spending up to now---- assume he is gonna hit his 'golden rule'----- he is going to start the next with spending as at present by definition--- but his rate of spending is increased by his curmudgeonly act at the start , thus its well out of control before he starts .
[ It is awkward to know what he'll do with this problem. My guess is he'll borrow up to 40% of GDP, but also borrow loads more from business 'off the books'
In case you don't know what that means - its another wrinkle he uses a lot- a company pays you to build/run a facility - say a hospital- say £100M to build it. Then they charge the government say £25M/year for 25 years as it's share of the cost. Result ? the government saves £100M of course in borrowings. End result ? one more term of office for Labour . Bless :)
]
No journalist/media guy has looked at the next cycle and what it means cos Brown has managed to keep the debate about this year's spending only.
How does he do it ? The man's a flipping genius in subterfuge ! and he doesnt care neither about the consequences
IT IS VERY WORRYING .....
He's managed to do this one for years and I keep reading about his Golden Rule and whether he is gonna keep to it that its really laughable.
I apologise for not drawing a graph to illustrate this joke, but it is quite easy to see without going into heavy maths.
He states that over a 6 year period [ish - its meant to be vague so he can fudge -- but that's another story] that he'll only nick enough of our money to pay for investment and will not nick our money to get the government into more debt.
That said he has a minor fudge cos he says that he wont borrow more than 40% of our GDP - ie the rule is worthless on that front .......
Anyway what did he do ?
At the start of his 'ship he stuck to the Tories spending plans , this kept borrowing down for about 5 years ? and enabled him to pay back debts.
Thus hes quids in at this point........
Then he decided to stick to his promise , ie to spend up to his limit. Fair enough and everyone knows about this - and is the cause of all the discussion.
As he has been accelerating his spending up to now---- assume he is gonna hit his 'golden rule'----- he is going to start the next with spending as at present by definition--- but his rate of spending is increased by his curmudgeonly act at the start , thus its well out of control before he starts .
[ It is awkward to know what he'll do with this problem. My guess is he'll borrow up to 40% of GDP, but also borrow loads more from business 'off the books'
In case you don't know what that means - its another wrinkle he uses a lot- a company pays you to build/run a facility - say a hospital- say £100M to build it. Then they charge the government say £25M/year for 25 years as it's share of the cost. Result ? the government saves £100M of course in borrowings. End result ? one more term of office for Labour . Bless :)
]
No journalist/media guy has looked at the next cycle and what it means cos Brown has managed to keep the debate about this year's spending only.
How does he do it ? The man's a flipping genius in subterfuge ! and he doesnt care neither about the consequences
IT IS VERY WORRYING .....
Thursday, January 13, 2005
microwaves + phones again?
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/russia.html
The above article syas bundles about microwave [and other EMF] radiation- its noot exactly new , but has been around for 60 years- showing that some parts of the spectrum causes death.
Russia has limits far below those of the West as it found that low levels addles the brain [ see latest health topic scare re mobile phones......
I feel that enough has been said on this topic and that the governments should get together and ban EMF usuage in the water heating part of the spectrum say 30- 300,000 MHz- with a special exemption for certain military uses .
Come on idiots- [aka journalists] please take up the shock horror probe banner and get this problem noticed before the world goes pottier than it is already.
http://www.emfacts.com/wlans.html also gives more info if you are interested...
The above article syas bundles about microwave [and other EMF] radiation- its noot exactly new , but has been around for 60 years- showing that some parts of the spectrum causes death.
Russia has limits far below those of the West as it found that low levels addles the brain [ see latest health topic scare re mobile phones......
I feel that enough has been said on this topic and that the governments should get together and ban EMF usuage in the water heating part of the spectrum say 30- 300,000 MHz- with a special exemption for certain military uses .
Come on idiots- [aka journalists] please take up the shock horror probe banner and get this problem noticed before the world goes pottier than it is already.
http://www.emfacts.com/wlans.html also gives more info if you are interested...
Friday, January 07, 2005
Aids in S africa needs aid
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4152595.stm
This isnt quite the news story I was looking for but its near enough IMO[read it yesterday but cant find it now].
Apart from the obvious- someone died and dad says it is natural....
People say that death was fromTB or pneumonia [ I know the article only says TB- but they cite as cause of death the actual reason usually and pneumonia is a major factor - remember AIDS doesnt *actually* kill ]. Then it goes on to say that the wife died of pneumonia last year ....
Also and most alarmingly was the little throwaway statistic of 5,0000,000 people out of 45,000,000 have the disease - over 10% of the population ! --- and the guy in charge still refuses to believe it exists ??????????
This isnt quite the news story I was looking for but its near enough IMO[read it yesterday but cant find it now].
Apart from the obvious- someone died and dad says it is natural....
People say that death was fromTB or pneumonia [ I know the article only says TB- but they cite as cause of death the actual reason usually and pneumonia is a major factor - remember AIDS doesnt *actually* kill ]. Then it goes on to say that the wife died of pneumonia last year ....
Also and most alarmingly was the little throwaway statistic of 5,0000,000 people out of 45,000,000 have the disease - over 10% of the population ! --- and the guy in charge still refuses to believe it exists ??????????
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)