If you want to see how this works look at this video. This video is just something I found on YouTube with very little views to test this with and it shouldn't have many views because noone knows about it, but actually it has loads thanks to this technique.
I used Tube Increaser to automatically up the view count.
The way this works is that you give Tube Increaser a YouTube video or channel to "up" and then off it goes.
You do need a list of HTTP proxies to make this work because YouTube knows the IP address of every view so you can't increase views by refreshing your video webpage repeatedly. This link gives you loads of HTTP proxies you can use. HTTP Proxy List
For every page of proxies, copy the left hand column (IP addresses) and put it in a text file. This can then be loaded in to Tube Increaser and then off you go.
Magic.
2008-01-06
Update: To Donate Or Not Donate ...
A while back I posted about opt-out versus opt-in policy for organ donation. Here's the original blog entry.
Well, there's been an update from the government on this. the e-petition was completed (4000+ signatures) and the government responded. Unfortunately, they are not saying much.
Link to original.
Hopefully something will happen and I know we must allow for due process, but I wish they had all said, "great idea" and got on with it.
Well, there's been an update from the government on this. the e-petition was completed (4000+ signatures) and the government responded. Unfortunately, they are not saying much.
The Government know that around 8,000 people in the UK need an organ transplant but only 3,000 transplants are carried out each year. With more than 400 people dying every year waiting for a new kidney, heart, lung or liver, we need to do everything possible to increase organ donation. The Government is keen to see organ donation and transplant rates start to rise and to match rates seen in some other European countries.
On 17 July this year, the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, published his Annual Report for 2006, On the State of Public Health, in which he reviews key health problems and developments. In his report, Sir Liam calls for action to tackle the present shortages of organs for transplantation. His recommendations include the need for legislation to be amended to create an opt-out system for organ donation, more opportunities to be taken to increase donations in hospitals and to maximise organ transplantation, and for targeted campaigns to be aimed at increasing organ donation in ethnic minority populations.
In 2006, prior to the Chief Medical Officer's report, Ministers asked officials within the Department of Health's transplant policy team and the UK Transplant (UKT) division of NHS Blood and Transplant to bring together a group of key people to form an organ donation taskforce. The taskforce was asked to review the progress made since the publication of Saving Lives, Valuing Donors - A Transplant Framework for England in 2003 and The National Service Framework for Renal Services in 2004. It will also identify barriers to organ donation, analyse factors militating against organ donation and make recommendations for increasing donation rates within existing legal frameworks. The taskforce will report to Ministers shortly on what steps could be taken to optimise donation rates, and we look forward to receiving its recommendations.
Following the publication of the Chief Medical Officer's report, the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, asked the organ donation taskforce to form a subgroup in order to examine the potential impact on donation rates of introducing an 'opt-out' or presumed consent system in the UK. It has been asked to consider the clinical, ethical, legal and societal issues surrounding such a system.
Any move to a system of presumed consent would require a change in the current law and extensive prior consultation.
Link to original.
Hopefully something will happen and I know we must allow for due process, but I wish they had all said, "great idea" and got on with it.
2007-03-14
Great Concept, but Would You Switch
LloydsTSB's save the change is one of the newest ways banks in the UK are trying desperately to get each others customers to switch to them. Personally, I see no reason to switch banks unless you get very bad service from them or they can not or will not do something to improve the way you bank. I've been with my bank for 24 years and really can't see myself switching. The first sort of switch offers I seriously looked at were the high current account interest options, with slogans aimed at making you question why you were with your banks "pitiful" interest on positive balances in a current account, when they offered you up to 60 times more interest. Well whoopee-do, because most of my account money is gone pretty soon as it reaches the account. It goes to pay bills and to my regular savings accounts. Once bills are paid and savings are made the money is mine. I'm not worried about spending my savings nor saving what I spend, that's all done.
I imagine that whilst I'm not alone sufficient people must keep an account balance that warrants such interest. I can't see why this isn't just in a savings account, but there must be reasons for it. Probably laziness, or persons that are well-off enough to have a significant amounts in a current account and not worry about investing it elsewhere. Surely, laziness is the sucker punch to stop the lazy from changing bank account and the well-off probably don't care either. However, what do I know.
Anyway, back to LloydsTSB; they have just had this great idea, why not round up all debit card transactions and save the difference. They'll do this automatically for you so all you have to do is spend, spend, spend. I actually think this is a fantastic idea, a simple thing that means a) all transactions are in whole pounds, which is great for a budget and b) you save money you don't notice. The trouble is this is not worth switching banks for. I did some calculations and on my debit card transactions I could save around £2 per week, if I expanded this to all transactions I can save £5 per week. So on average this makes me £20 a month better off and approximately £240 a year richer.
Is £240 a year worth the hassle? For a lower income family, that may find it hard to save this sounds like a great idea. I wonder if they would save as much as me though as I make a lot of transactions a month. It's not the amount you spend, but the relative number of transactions and the difference in transactions rounded up that matters. This means it could be a similar saving for a lower income family, but remember I had to include all transactions, not just debit card transactions to reach this figure. The total debit card savings is actually only £84 per year. This is potentially significant, perhaps as much part of a Christmas savings pot, but is it worth a switch? I don't think so, but then that's me, I'll only make a change for a very good reason.
In the meantime, I've started calculating the difference of all transactions in one month and saving that total difference in the next months budget. £240 will do me nicely, without any hassle of changing banks. The moral of this story, steal other people's good ideas, but don't inconvenience yourself.
I imagine that whilst I'm not alone sufficient people must keep an account balance that warrants such interest. I can't see why this isn't just in a savings account, but there must be reasons for it. Probably laziness, or persons that are well-off enough to have a significant amounts in a current account and not worry about investing it elsewhere. Surely, laziness is the sucker punch to stop the lazy from changing bank account and the well-off probably don't care either. However, what do I know.
Anyway, back to LloydsTSB; they have just had this great idea, why not round up all debit card transactions and save the difference. They'll do this automatically for you so all you have to do is spend, spend, spend. I actually think this is a fantastic idea, a simple thing that means a) all transactions are in whole pounds, which is great for a budget and b) you save money you don't notice. The trouble is this is not worth switching banks for. I did some calculations and on my debit card transactions I could save around £2 per week, if I expanded this to all transactions I can save £5 per week. So on average this makes me £20 a month better off and approximately £240 a year richer.
Is £240 a year worth the hassle? For a lower income family, that may find it hard to save this sounds like a great idea. I wonder if they would save as much as me though as I make a lot of transactions a month. It's not the amount you spend, but the relative number of transactions and the difference in transactions rounded up that matters. This means it could be a similar saving for a lower income family, but remember I had to include all transactions, not just debit card transactions to reach this figure. The total debit card savings is actually only £84 per year. This is potentially significant, perhaps as much part of a Christmas savings pot, but is it worth a switch? I don't think so, but then that's me, I'll only make a change for a very good reason.
In the meantime, I've started calculating the difference of all transactions in one month and saving that total difference in the next months budget. £240 will do me nicely, without any hassle of changing banks. The moral of this story, steal other people's good ideas, but don't inconvenience yourself.
2007-03-09
2007-02-13
To Donate Or Not Donate; There Should Be No Question.
Having a donor card is pointless. Time after time distraught families veto any altruistic last wishes of a donor. I don't know how it came to pass, but somehow the rights of the person over their body end with death despite the fact that their rights of control of their money continue through a will. Would anyone allow their next of kin control of their money and possessions after death, most likely not, but somehow the law allows just that control despite a persons wishes over their physical body.
There are two solutions to this problem, one moderate, one comprehensive. I'm going to put forward first why any solution is better than the current situation and second why the comprehensive solution should be considered above the moderate one.
The donor card scheme seems a sensible scheme until you realise that it has no legal basis for success. You can register as a donor, but this registration may not be found at the right moment through a donor search unless you are carrying a card, so the legal option is to assume donation was not permitted. If you are carrying the card, your right to organ donation may be usurped by the rights of your next of kin to whom the absolute right over your body is granted upon death. The moderate solution is to decide that if a person wishes to donate their body to help others upon death then the right to do so is entirely the persons and no one elses. The moderate solution is to make carrying a donor card or registration on a donor database legally binding. If the deceased wishes to donate then the decision to use the body for organs is then given to the doctors at the time. This moderate solution at least stops the donor system from being a damp squib of a system (pardon the euphemism). If I want to donate my organs I should be able to and the decision to do so should be entirely mine to make.
A BBC survey ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4165656.stm [BBC News] ) suggests that the majority of people are in favour of organ donation. The survey data is not something I have access to and the BBC journalism in the news article is suspect in terms of statistics and what it is really trying to say, but the points it raises are important to my argument for an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system, which is my comprehensive solution.
One key statistic though is that 2.724 organ transplants took place last year, but 7,708 people are awaiting transplants. This either means that all people waiting will get one in approximately three years time if the figures are steady or that a lot of the 7,708 people will die or have an extended period of serious ill-health and discomfort because they don't get an organ time. However, as people get ill all the time the number of people requiring organ donation will be added to. In short there are not enough donor organs for those requiring a transplant.
We need in increase the number of people donating organs. One way is my moderate approach above, it will increase the number of donated organs, but will that be enough. Firstly there still may not be enough organs available and secondly not all organs donated are of a suitable match to the transplant patient or in a suitable condition to be donated. Really we need to increase the number donors in total. A fact is that a lot of people would donate, but "haven't got around to it"; that old chestnut. Our inherent laziness or pragmatism that says we either can't be bother to do something or that the something has not become sufficiently important in our hierarchy of needs that we'll actually do it. Sure we'll feel guilty about it or concerned that we "should do something", but that won't happen. We should change this.
People also have misconceptions about donation, thinking that their bodies will be experimented on or that because they drink heavily or are overweight their organs are not useful. Sure you may damage your liver drinking, but that shouldn't affect donation of your cornea to a blind person. And, of course, you certainly will not be experimented on, many people confuse organ donation to donating their bodies to medical science. They are very different things. So we have laziness and misunderstanding to blame for a lack of donors, surely we can overcome this.
One way to overcome it is to spend money on education and on campaigns to recruit donors, but recruiting a donor is costly and must be done time and again. Each new generation of adults needs education and recruiting, which means that this is a continual cost to government. An efficient mechanism is surely to legislate an opt-out scheme. For a one-off cost of parliament you get an increase in donors immediately. An increase that continues as a steady level of donors for good.
Many people object to organ donation and they have a right to do so, they also have a right to preserve their bodies thus the opt-out scheme would allow these people to object and opt-out of donation. I believe this is the right way to go, it allows an increase in donors and respects the rights of those that want to preserve their bodies upon death. Many people feel this way, but their inherent laziness or pragmatism means they won't get around to opting out, and this way we also overcome ignorance or misconception of donation.
There's been a lot of talk about how we should move the right of the dead, or rather the right of the next of kin from opt-in to opt-out making it a right of the living to continue to live through donors. Many European countries do this and I've signed the petition at the government website (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Organ-Donation/ [UK government Website] ) in favour of this. It's a shame that more people are interesting in road charging ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6349027.stm [BBC News] ) than preserving life. I'm not saying 1 million people shouldn't petition against the road charging proposals as there are fundamental human rights at stake there too, but I think 1 million people should equally petition for life through donation of organs, which is a more significant and fundamental human right.
There are two solutions to this problem, one moderate, one comprehensive. I'm going to put forward first why any solution is better than the current situation and second why the comprehensive solution should be considered above the moderate one.
The donor card scheme seems a sensible scheme until you realise that it has no legal basis for success. You can register as a donor, but this registration may not be found at the right moment through a donor search unless you are carrying a card, so the legal option is to assume donation was not permitted. If you are carrying the card, your right to organ donation may be usurped by the rights of your next of kin to whom the absolute right over your body is granted upon death. The moderate solution is to decide that if a person wishes to donate their body to help others upon death then the right to do so is entirely the persons and no one elses. The moderate solution is to make carrying a donor card or registration on a donor database legally binding. If the deceased wishes to donate then the decision to use the body for organs is then given to the doctors at the time. This moderate solution at least stops the donor system from being a damp squib of a system (pardon the euphemism). If I want to donate my organs I should be able to and the decision to do so should be entirely mine to make.
A BBC survey ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4165656.stm [BBC News] ) suggests that the majority of people are in favour of organ donation. The survey data is not something I have access to and the BBC journalism in the news article is suspect in terms of statistics and what it is really trying to say, but the points it raises are important to my argument for an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system, which is my comprehensive solution.
One key statistic though is that 2.724 organ transplants took place last year, but 7,708 people are awaiting transplants. This either means that all people waiting will get one in approximately three years time if the figures are steady or that a lot of the 7,708 people will die or have an extended period of serious ill-health and discomfort because they don't get an organ time. However, as people get ill all the time the number of people requiring organ donation will be added to. In short there are not enough donor organs for those requiring a transplant.
We need in increase the number of people donating organs. One way is my moderate approach above, it will increase the number of donated organs, but will that be enough. Firstly there still may not be enough organs available and secondly not all organs donated are of a suitable match to the transplant patient or in a suitable condition to be donated. Really we need to increase the number donors in total. A fact is that a lot of people would donate, but "haven't got around to it"; that old chestnut. Our inherent laziness or pragmatism that says we either can't be bother to do something or that the something has not become sufficiently important in our hierarchy of needs that we'll actually do it. Sure we'll feel guilty about it or concerned that we "should do something", but that won't happen. We should change this.
People also have misconceptions about donation, thinking that their bodies will be experimented on or that because they drink heavily or are overweight their organs are not useful. Sure you may damage your liver drinking, but that shouldn't affect donation of your cornea to a blind person. And, of course, you certainly will not be experimented on, many people confuse organ donation to donating their bodies to medical science. They are very different things. So we have laziness and misunderstanding to blame for a lack of donors, surely we can overcome this.
One way to overcome it is to spend money on education and on campaigns to recruit donors, but recruiting a donor is costly and must be done time and again. Each new generation of adults needs education and recruiting, which means that this is a continual cost to government. An efficient mechanism is surely to legislate an opt-out scheme. For a one-off cost of parliament you get an increase in donors immediately. An increase that continues as a steady level of donors for good.
Many people object to organ donation and they have a right to do so, they also have a right to preserve their bodies thus the opt-out scheme would allow these people to object and opt-out of donation. I believe this is the right way to go, it allows an increase in donors and respects the rights of those that want to preserve their bodies upon death. Many people feel this way, but their inherent laziness or pragmatism means they won't get around to opting out, and this way we also overcome ignorance or misconception of donation.
There's been a lot of talk about how we should move the right of the dead, or rather the right of the next of kin from opt-in to opt-out making it a right of the living to continue to live through donors. Many European countries do this and I've signed the petition at the government website (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Organ-Donation/ [UK government Website] ) in favour of this. It's a shame that more people are interesting in road charging ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6349027.stm [BBC News] ) than preserving life. I'm not saying 1 million people shouldn't petition against the road charging proposals as there are fundamental human rights at stake there too, but I think 1 million people should equally petition for life through donation of organs, which is a more significant and fundamental human right.
2006-12-09
I can dive to 20m
Yes! I have finally finished all the requisite parts of my British Sub-Aqua Club Ocean Diver course. I'm legal to dive worldwide at depths of down to 20m (although I did 21m today!)
This is sweet because my girlfriend's Dad is an ex-Irish International deep-water spear-fisherman and when I go out to New Zealand next year (don't ask about the jump from Ireland to New Zealand), I can go diving with him. This is very good.
I like diving, today I dived in to a sunken freighter, an aircraft cockpit, an ancient submarine and a house in an old flooded quarry.
If you wanna go diving with me, I'm looking for buddies!
This is sweet because my girlfriend's Dad is an ex-Irish International deep-water spear-fisherman and when I go out to New Zealand next year (don't ask about the jump from Ireland to New Zealand), I can go diving with him. This is very good.
I like diving, today I dived in to a sunken freighter, an aircraft cockpit, an ancient submarine and a house in an old flooded quarry.
If you wanna go diving with me, I'm looking for buddies!
2006-11-14
Cause For Contemplation
In the same week that I'm getting frustrated by some of the political posturing around Iraq I read a story about a Chicago man's self-immolation, which could be attributed to a protest against political decisions on the war in Iraq.
I was going to post a rant about how we shouldn't be asking Syria and Iran to pitch in to help the new Iraq (and Afganistan I suppose) before talking to our friendly Middle-Eastern states. There are some states that don't hate us, why not enlist their help. The rant was to be based on how if we ask Syria and Iran to help, we are only asking them so they can refuse or demand it done in such a way that we diagree with them. It's a win-win situation for UK/USA because they look like doing something, but actually it's just pushing someone in to a position where whatever they do UK/USA can say, "see, they are bastards we shouldn't" trust.
I say I was going to post because I am really just gutted about Malachi Ritscher, this article explains it all. It's a sad story, and regardless of whether it was a protest against the war, that's some serious determination there, determinism, which could have been channeled somewhere. That or the problems we face with life or with the "war on terror[-ism]" are too much for one single determined person.
I feel pretty melancholy and can identify with the frustration of someone that really feels they can't make a difference. The Iraq situation, the Arab/Israeli conflict and the problems caused by various other ideological differences will still go on no matter what you do.
I was going to post a rant about how we shouldn't be asking Syria and Iran to pitch in to help the new Iraq (and Afganistan I suppose) before talking to our friendly Middle-Eastern states. There are some states that don't hate us, why not enlist their help. The rant was to be based on how if we ask Syria and Iran to help, we are only asking them so they can refuse or demand it done in such a way that we diagree with them. It's a win-win situation for UK/USA because they look like doing something, but actually it's just pushing someone in to a position where whatever they do UK/USA can say, "see, they are bastards we shouldn't" trust.
I say I was going to post because I am really just gutted about Malachi Ritscher, this article explains it all. It's a sad story, and regardless of whether it was a protest against the war, that's some serious determination there, determinism, which could have been channeled somewhere. That or the problems we face with life or with the "war on terror[-ism]" are too much for one single determined person.
I feel pretty melancholy and can identify with the frustration of someone that really feels they can't make a difference. The Iraq situation, the Arab/Israeli conflict and the problems caused by various other ideological differences will still go on no matter what you do.
2006-11-03
Stupid Media News Statements #1
The BBC radio news today, talking about this story stated, "Scientists are recommending fishing reductions to save fish species". It goes on to say, "However, sceptics say that a total ban on fishing would see the end of the fishing industry."
That's like saying that banning all cars would see the end of the motoring industry, true, but obvious.
That's like saying that banning all cars would see the end of the motoring industry, true, but obvious.
2006-10-23
Working Out Is Bad For You
I've embarked on a post-30 workout regime at a new gym near my offices. The aim is to have a pre-30 body, well actually pre-26 body because that's when I stopped working out and started putting on the kilos in a serious way.
It turns out that although I've benefited from the new exercise regime (2cm loss on waist, 2cm gain on biceps and quads), I've never had so many injuries or ailments. In my first week I hurt my knee, in my second week I over worked my front calf-muscle and the list goes on. In the last ten days I have strained my heel area of my left foot, my left elbow hurts and my left thumb has swollen like a balloon.
My advice is that getting fit is worth it, but the phrase should be, "no pain, you're doing alright again"
It turns out that although I've benefited from the new exercise regime (2cm loss on waist, 2cm gain on biceps and quads), I've never had so many injuries or ailments. In my first week I hurt my knee, in my second week I over worked my front calf-muscle and the list goes on. In the last ten days I have strained my heel area of my left foot, my left elbow hurts and my left thumb has swollen like a balloon.
My advice is that getting fit is worth it, but the phrase should be, "no pain, you're doing alright again"
2006-10-19
China's Scientists Have Always Been Great
This BBC Radio 4 programme, which I managed to catch today was pretty interesting. China was the world power in scientific innovation until the 1700s or so. Apparently, there was a back lash against western science, which prevented an uptake of western science to allow China to further improve once European scientists began to make their own breakthrough, which lead to western science becoming the most advanced. During the backlash, there was propaganda disseminated about why not to trust western science; babies' eyes were supposedly required to construct mirrors and for every railway sleeper laid a dead baby must be laid too. These meant people mistrusted western science and so advancement wasn't made through it's adoption.
You can listen to the show here for the next 7 days. This link is not yet available as of 09:15 GMT because the show has only just finished, but this link and the link on the BBC website will be valid today.
You can listen to the show here for the next 7 days. This link is not yet available as of 09:15 GMT because the show has only just finished, but this link and the link on the BBC website will be valid today.
2006-10-18
Things You Should Never Witness #1
A man using a hairdrier to dry his genitals. Yes, that's what I saw this morning and I'm still in shock.
More Things I Won't Follow-up On
Here's another lame promise.
I just got back from a trip to Spain for my Grandma's 80th birthday, she's been living there for 20 years, so this was a double anniversary. Lots of stuff happened that I'll tell you about, never.
Also, I went to the Green Man Festival in August, I suspect you'll never hear about how good that was and why I think small festivals are the way forward.
I just got back from a trip to Spain for my Grandma's 80th birthday, she's been living there for 20 years, so this was a double anniversary. Lots of stuff happened that I'll tell you about, never.
Also, I went to the Green Man Festival in August, I suspect you'll never hear about how good that was and why I think small festivals are the way forward.
2006-07-31
Finally Made It To Slashdot
Yes! After almost 7 years and 3 attempts (okay that's not too many) I finally got an article up on Slashdot. That is all.
Update:
It seems that the Blogger template I use doesn't make it very clear that if my blog post is about a link to another site you can get to it via the actual title of the post. This is a clickable link. As this isn't obivous I suspect that many people have missed a lot of information. Here is the link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1058204
Update:
It seems that the Blogger template I use doesn't make it very clear that if my blog post is about a link to another site you can get to it via the actual title of the post. This is a clickable link. As this isn't obivous I suspect that many people have missed a lot of information. Here is the link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1058204
2006-07-18
Commute across Europe?
This article on the BBC News website is quite interesting; I have thought about doing this, but I'm not sure if it'll work or if I could do it ethically. I don't think it would work with my current job, but it's a thought if you're wondering what living abroad might do for you. If you read the comments to the article you see an argument forming like this:
For - I commute from country A to country B, I manage to spend more time at home with my family, commute less time each week and have a higher standard of living/higher disposable income. I know that there is an environmental cost, but surely the plane would be flying that route anyway so the total pollution for the flight remains the same, but we've one less car on the road every day.
Against - How irresponsible you are? Aviation is the most polluting of all travel, this world is dying and we all need to stop pollution and our contribution to the climate change. Whilst I can understand living abroad trying to work in one country and work in another is untenable, make a choice between one or the other.
It's interesting and I'm not sure where I stand. The thought of living somewhere else with the same money is very appealing, thus becoming effectively richer is great, especially when you think of that comparison in the article on air prices and train fares. As always the "good" guys' arguments sound weak compared to the "bad" guys. For example, the commuters are all about look what I can do, look what I've got, this is so much better - very me oriented and you can see the appeal. The environmentalists are quite simple in their statement - air travel is bad think of the environment. What we see is lots of fors and one against (two if you include the tax argument or sundry costs argument). I think the environmental argument is one massive argument compared to the lots of small, but people are very selfish and don't think like that.
As an exercise in proving who is right from the environmental point of view I'd like to know how the environmental costs compare. Firstly on a per person basis by comparing environmental footprint of just one week or one month's commuting (car travel daily versus two plane trips weekly, that sort of thing). Secondly work out what would happen if we all did it. I reckon the plane would be worse than the car immediately, but if not and it was practical environmentally for certain journies I think that if everyone did it, it would be completely unacceptable. I mean, if I flew from Barcelona to work compared to my 9 mile drive that is nuts and so the average would make this impossible to do without serious environmental, infrastructural and social damage.
For - I commute from country A to country B, I manage to spend more time at home with my family, commute less time each week and have a higher standard of living/higher disposable income. I know that there is an environmental cost, but surely the plane would be flying that route anyway so the total pollution for the flight remains the same, but we've one less car on the road every day.
Against - How irresponsible you are? Aviation is the most polluting of all travel, this world is dying and we all need to stop pollution and our contribution to the climate change. Whilst I can understand living abroad trying to work in one country and work in another is untenable, make a choice between one or the other.
It's interesting and I'm not sure where I stand. The thought of living somewhere else with the same money is very appealing, thus becoming effectively richer is great, especially when you think of that comparison in the article on air prices and train fares. As always the "good" guys' arguments sound weak compared to the "bad" guys. For example, the commuters are all about look what I can do, look what I've got, this is so much better - very me oriented and you can see the appeal. The environmentalists are quite simple in their statement - air travel is bad think of the environment. What we see is lots of fors and one against (two if you include the tax argument or sundry costs argument). I think the environmental argument is one massive argument compared to the lots of small, but people are very selfish and don't think like that.
As an exercise in proving who is right from the environmental point of view I'd like to know how the environmental costs compare. Firstly on a per person basis by comparing environmental footprint of just one week or one month's commuting (car travel daily versus two plane trips weekly, that sort of thing). Secondly work out what would happen if we all did it. I reckon the plane would be worse than the car immediately, but if not and it was practical environmentally for certain journies I think that if everyone did it, it would be completely unacceptable. I mean, if I flew from Barcelona to work compared to my 9 mile drive that is nuts and so the average would make this impossible to do without serious environmental, infrastructural and social damage.
2006-07-09
Something's gonna give
I full intend to update the blog soon, I've lots to tell, but not the time currently to do everything justice. Here's a summary of things so far:
I reckon I'll have something written and editing within a week. (I'm sure you can't wait.)
- Train injustice #1 - The journey to Gatwick
- Holiday in Ireland - Lots of camping (ohh Matron) and hiking.
- Train injustice #2 - The journey from Gatwick
- General ramblings/comments about things I've heard on Radio FiveLive in the morning or the media in general that are stupid or inconsistent. You know how much of a pedant I am.
I reckon I'll have something written and editing within a week. (I'm sure you can't wait.)
2006-04-20
Capital Radio Advertising Lies
First off, I don't listen to Capital FM, in fact if you ever read this blog (and I don't suppose many do) and you happen to read something about a radio station, it's most likely one I heard in a colleagues car whilst working. Hence, Capital FM, Radio Mercury (the heart of the south apparently), Magic et al are not frequent listens of mine. In most cases I don't like them. So please don't judge me all right. Or if you do judge me at least judge me on the stuff I want you to judge me on and not random asides on radio stations.
Anyway, I was listening to Capital FM this afternoon and there was an advert, when it finished there was an advert for Captial saying, "we don't put more than two adverts back to back, so you don't have to change over". This was followed by another advert before the "music" resumed. (See my Captial FM dislike of "music" coming through? Good.) This struck me as a lie because there were obviously 3 adverts there, not 2. Some may say, but it was a jingle. True, but that's just another word for advert. So there you have it. Proof that Capital FM lies to it's listeners, the trouble is the're all so dumb they don't notice.
Anyway, I was listening to Capital FM this afternoon and there was an advert, when it finished there was an advert for Captial saying, "we don't put more than two adverts back to back, so you don't have to change over". This was followed by another advert before the "music" resumed. (See my Captial FM dislike of "music" coming through? Good.) This struck me as a lie because there were obviously 3 adverts there, not 2. Some may say, but it was a jingle. True, but that's just another word for advert. So there you have it. Proof that Capital FM lies to it's listeners, the trouble is the're all so dumb they don't notice.
2006-03-22
Apparently They Do
know who I am. 7 days after the incident in the Post Office I received through the post a nice shiny new Passport with my fat face in the back of it.
I feel like a trip to the Post Office just to gloat.
I feel like a trip to the Post Office just to gloat.
2006-03-07
Do you know who I am?
There can't be many levels of embarassment and self-pity below where I sank yesterday.
I went to renew my 10 year passport at the Post Office; they do this "check and send" service, where you get the application form checked for you and a guaranteed two-week turn around. I got myself some nice new pictures taken and queued like a good man. I stepped up to the counter and presented my documents; one valid passport as ID, one application form and one set of new pictures. Whilst the counter staff are whizzing away on my application I switch-off.
I went to renew my 10 year passport at the Post Office; they do this "check and send" service, where you get the application form checked for you and a guaranteed two-week turn around. I got myself some nice new pictures taken and queued like a good man. I stepped up to the counter and presented my documents; one valid passport as ID, one application form and one set of new pictures. Whilst the counter staff are whizzing away on my application I switch-off.
BEFORE"Excuse me, but you haven't had these counter-signed", says the man. He's referring to the new photos of my, which don't need to be counter-signed for a renewal if the existing passport is valid still. "But I don't need to because this is a renewal", I reply. "That's true, but not if your appearance has altered significantly from 10 years ago."
"What do you mean?", I ask. "Well you've put on a bit of weight and I don't believe that you bear any resemblance to the passport photo." Oh, excellent. In public I have been told that I'm fat and that my passport application won't be processed. I calmed myself slightly and responded with, "I don't have them counter-signed and I want to apply. And anyway, how come no one in the US, Canada, New Zealand, China and most of Europe hasn't said this to me as I cross their borders?"
"What do you mean?", I ask. "Well you've put on a bit of weight and I don't believe that you bear any resemblance to the passport photo." Oh, excellent. In public I have been told that I'm fat and that my passport application won't be processed. I calmed myself slightly and responded with, "I don't have them counter-signed and I want to apply. And anyway, how come no one in the US, Canada, New Zealand, China and most of Europe hasn't said this to me as I cross their borders?"
AFTER2006-03-05
Who put the ming in Menzies
Why is Menzies pronounced Mingis?
Thank you to the BBC for helping clear up why Sir Menzies Cambell has such a strange pronunciation of his first name.
There are some notable comments at the bottom too, my favourite is this:
"... Jean Harlow was at a dinner party and kept on addressing Margot Asquith (wife of prime minister Herbert Asquith) as MargoT (pronouncing the 'T'). Margot finally had enough and said to her "No Jean, the T is silent, as in Harlow"
Oh you don't find it funny? Then stick two fenzers up your ass.
Thank you to the BBC for helping clear up why Sir Menzies Cambell has such a strange pronunciation of his first name.
There are some notable comments at the bottom too, my favourite is this:
"... Jean Harlow was at a dinner party and kept on addressing Margot Asquith (wife of prime minister Herbert Asquith) as MargoT (pronouncing the 'T'). Margot finally had enough and said to her "No Jean, the T is silent, as in Harlow"
Oh you don't find it funny? Then stick two fenzers up your ass.
2006-03-03
Shock news - journalists sensationalise stories
I read this story and listened to and read other supporting news stories today. As a scientist, I am all for accurate reporting. It frustrates me to listen in to talk shows or read posts by misinformed, opinionated, but ultimately wrong people discussing science stories on the news. Take the MMR furore, millions of babies have now not been vaccinated and may catch some of the diseases it prevents while waiting for the singular injections, which in turn will probably increase the rates infection of a preventable disease. The cause? One article suggesting a slight correlation between the MMR jab and autism. The news reports blew it out of proportion and at no point was any hard fact put up to inform people. So there is a risk associated with a vaccine? So what! There is a risk associated with crossing the street, but many people do it and with out crossing the street they can not carry out their daily lives. It's not about risk it's about acceptable risk.
Anyway, I'm not writing this in order to argue for or against old news. What is new news is the recommendations for science journalism:
* Newspapers and broadcasters should employ more science graduates
* Scientists and science graduates should be encouraged to undertake media training
* Universities should offer multidisciplinary science degrees which include issues of ethics
* Policymakers need a better understanding of public perceptions of risk
This is all well and good when a story is being covered by a science correspondent, what this doesn't address is what happens when a science story moves from the science correspondent to the political correspondent as the news story gathers pace and becomes a full scale political story. You can't keep the facts from being sensationalised because the political correspondent sees his/her spin on it and also they are not formally trained in science. Seriously, would you read political or economic commentary from a person with a chemistry degree? No, you'd expect a politics or economics graduate with experience in the field otherwise the story isn't credible.
The other side of this is that censoring the news or regulating the news is either wrong or right, but never in the middle. If you censor science stories, what about the stories that get the facts wrong in other areas. You either censor them all or none. The stories that ruin people's lives based on rumour and conjecture or take down political careers could equally be censored. Personally I feel that love them or hate them the journalists bring the stories to our attention and do provide a source of information about important news that may otherwise pass them by. Hell, it may even save a life or benefit others if someone goes to the doctor or whistle-blows on their employer based on information in the news.
What we really need to do is not focus on the journalists, but on the readers. If the average member of the public isn't science savvy enough to question something and do their own research or can't stop themselves from believing everything put in front of them it's them that needs help.
Don't censor the media, enlighten the people.
Anyway, I'm not writing this in order to argue for or against old news. What is new news is the recommendations for science journalism:
* Newspapers and broadcasters should employ more science graduates
* Scientists and science graduates should be encouraged to undertake media training
* Universities should offer multidisciplinary science degrees which include issues of ethics
* Policymakers need a better understanding of public perceptions of risk
This is all well and good when a story is being covered by a science correspondent, what this doesn't address is what happens when a science story moves from the science correspondent to the political correspondent as the news story gathers pace and becomes a full scale political story. You can't keep the facts from being sensationalised because the political correspondent sees his/her spin on it and also they are not formally trained in science. Seriously, would you read political or economic commentary from a person with a chemistry degree? No, you'd expect a politics or economics graduate with experience in the field otherwise the story isn't credible.
The other side of this is that censoring the news or regulating the news is either wrong or right, but never in the middle. If you censor science stories, what about the stories that get the facts wrong in other areas. You either censor them all or none. The stories that ruin people's lives based on rumour and conjecture or take down political careers could equally be censored. Personally I feel that love them or hate them the journalists bring the stories to our attention and do provide a source of information about important news that may otherwise pass them by. Hell, it may even save a life or benefit others if someone goes to the doctor or whistle-blows on their employer based on information in the news.
What we really need to do is not focus on the journalists, but on the readers. If the average member of the public isn't science savvy enough to question something and do their own research or can't stop themselves from believing everything put in front of them it's them that needs help.
Don't censor the media, enlighten the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
