HD TV rip off

On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:57:07 GMT, Steve Thackery wrote:

JJ: you are making yourself look a fool. By all means say "I don't see
the need for more than one monitor". That's fine. It's clearly a
statement of fact. But your arguments as to why nobody else needs
multiple monitors is ridiculous.

By your own argument, you should be working off a screen about the size
of a smartphone, as the area you can actually *see* without moving your
eyes is tiny.

Give it up, mate. You're in a hole: stop digging.

His head's so far up his arse he can't even see the ****in' hole any more.

On Dec 4, 10:34*pm, Java Jive wrote:
WTF for? *Haven't you heard of using the Alt-Tab key to swap between
open windows almost faster than you can turn your head? *Haven't you
heard of Global Warming?

Ah yes, "Global Warming" - the thing that gives you the right to tell
someone you've never met how many PC monitors they should have.

Interesting piece on Radio 4 the other day - some psychologist asked
at a "green" conference: if I could give you the magic bullet to stop
climate change completely, but it meant that human capitalist greed
could continue unabated without damaging the planet, so you couldn't
go around telling people to consume less, would you want it?

The overwhelming answer was no - climate change gave the green lobby a
wonderful credible justification for pushing the anti-capitalist anti-
global anti-science agenda that they had been pushing _long_ before
climate change was even mentioned.


OTOH in a recent thread there was a link to a great e-book from a
Cambridge professor looking at energy security in the UK: what could
be provided from renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and energy saving.
The numbers were dizzying. The conclusion was pretty clear: we need a
proper energy policy. All this "every little helps" and "turn your
mobile phone charger off" stuff is pointless.

Assuming you want the UK to have a secure supply of energy throughout
this century, the conclusions were very similar with or without a
concern for climate change.

....but I don't have the link bookmarked on this PC!

Cheers,
David.

OTOH in a recent thread there was a link to a great e-book from a
Cambridge professor looking at energy security in the UK: what could
be provided from renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and energy saving.
The numbers were dizzying. The conclusion was pretty clear: we need a
proper energy policy. All this "every little helps" and "turn your
mobile phone charger off" stuff is pointless.



David Mackay I believe..

http://www.withouthotair.com/


Assuming you want the UK to have a secure supply of energy throughout
this century, the conclusions were very similar with or without a
concern for climate change.

...but I don't have the link bookmarked on this PC!

Cheers,
David.

--
Tony Sayer

On Dec 11, 9:31*pm, tony sayer wrote:
OTOH in a recent thread there was a link to a great e-book from a
Cambridge professor looking at energy security in the UK: what could
be provided from renewables, nuclear, clean coal, and energy saving.
The numbers were dizzying. The conclusion was pretty clear: we need a
proper energy policy. All this "every little helps" and "turn your
mobile phone charger off" stuff is pointless.

David Mackay I believe..

http://www.withouthotair.com/

That was the one - thanks Tony.

I think I spotted a couple of assumptions that I find unconvincing
(e.g. nearly full trains - not around here!), but over all it's a
delight to read something about energy that's based on science and
facts, rather than political posturing, scaremongering, and making
people "feel good" about pointless actions.

Cheers,
David.

You don't know what to believe.

Bill

Every now and again there appears a bagel or breadcake with the image
of Jesus on it.

I believe that this proves the existence of God !

Then again I could just be talking ********.

Bill you could do worse then check these figures :-

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Mauna Loa observatory in
the
middle of the Pacific Ocean.
And also google the carbon cycle - to check the history of the
proportion of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and it's impact on climate.

Or try this for a simple introduction :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

alanp wrote:

You don't know what to believe.

Bill

Every now and again there appears a bagel or breadcake with the image of
Jesus on it.

I believe that this proves the existence of God !

Then again I could just be talking ********.

Bill you could do worse then check these figures :-

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Mauna Loa observatory in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Those graphs have been designed to present an untrue picture. The
baseline has been set just below the lowest datum, allowing the vertical
scale to greatly exaggerate the trend.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
alanp wrote:

You don't know what to believe.

Bill

Every now and again there appears a bagel or breadcake with the image of
Jesus on it.

I believe that this proves the existence of God !

Then again I could just be talking ********.

Bill you could do worse then check these figures :-

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Mauna Loa observatory in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Those graphs have been designed to present an untrue picture. The baseline
has been set just below the lowest datum, allowing the vertical scale to
greatly exaggerate the trend.

Bill

You're definitely being an idiot this time Bill.
The figures are clearly there by the Y axis.
Nobody sane would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
alanp wrote:
You don't know what to believe.

Bill
Every now and again there appears a bagel or breadcake with the image of
Jesus on it.

I believe that this proves the existence of God !

Then again I could just be talking ********.

Bill you could do worse then check these figures :-

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Mauna Loa observatory in the
middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Those graphs have been designed to present an untrue picture. The baseline
has been set just below the lowest datum, allowing the vertical scale to
greatly exaggerate the trend.

Bill

You're definitely being an idiot this time Bill.
The figures are clearly there by the Y axis.
Nobody sane would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis.

No, I think the title 'idiot' rests with you in this case. Of course
no-one would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis. But to give a true picture, in which the casual
reader could get an accurate impression of the percentage increase, the
base line should not represent a value just below the lowest datum
point. That has been done so the vertical axis can encompass the plotted
values only, which makes the line on the graph as steep as it's possible
to make it. To take the other extreme of graph-fiddling, if the vertical
axis started at 0 the plotted line would be almost horizontal. Both
extremes are a distortion.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
alanp wrote:
You don't know what to believe.

Bill
Every now and again there appears a bagel or breadcake with the image
of Jesus on it.

I believe that this proves the existence of God !

Then again I could just be talking ********.

Bill you could do worse then check these figures :-

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ Mauna Loa observatory in
the
middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Those graphs have been designed to present an untrue picture. The
baseline has been set just below the lowest datum, allowing the vertical
scale to greatly exaggerate the trend.

Bill

You're definitely being an idiot this time Bill.
The figures are clearly there by the Y axis.
Nobody sane would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis.

No, I think the title 'idiot' rests with you in this case. Of course
no-one would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis. But to give a true picture, in which the casual
reader could get an accurate impression of the percentage increase, the
base line should not represent a value just below the lowest datum point.
That has been done so the vertical axis can encompass the plotted values
only, which makes the line on the graph as steep as it's possible to make
it. To take the other extreme of graph-fiddling, if the vertical axis
started at 0 the plotted line would be almost horizontal. Both extremes
are a distortion.

Would you like to suggest where the X axis should cross the Y axis and why
then?

Seems to be it has to be an arbitrary value known only to Bill, all knowing
God of all weather related graphs.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

You're definitely being an idiot this time Bill.
The figures are clearly there by the Y axis.
Nobody sane would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis.

No, I think the title 'idiot' rests with you in this case. Of course
no-one would insist on there being 6 feet of blank page between the
lines and the X axis. But to give a true picture, in which the casual
reader could get an accurate impression of the percentage increase, the
base line should not represent a value just below the lowest datum point.
That has been done so the vertical axis can encompass the plotted values
only, which makes the line on the graph as steep as it's possible to make
it. To take the other extreme of graph-fiddling, if the vertical axis
started at 0 the plotted line would be almost horizontal. Both extremes
are a distortion.

Would you like to suggest where the X axis should cross the Y axis and why
then?

Seems to be it has to be an arbitrary value known only to Bill, all knowing
God of all weather related graphs.

Now now, you're beginning to splutter a bit!

My point is simply that the way a graph is drawn can greatly influence
the initial impression of the information within it that even a clued-up
reader might be given. In my opinion the graphs here have been designed
to emphasise, or even exaggerate, the increase in quantity.

Anyone who uses a scope or other test equipment that presents
information graphically will know how stretching or squeezing either
axis can give a completely different impression of the readings. In this
case, in order to stretch the vertical axis so as to make the trend
appear steeper the author has had to start the said axis at an arbitrary
value. To me that's a bit disingenuous. You might think it's OK, but I'm
just an ordinary bloke who likes to think that the 'experts' will try to
present their evidence in a clear and fair way.

Bill