The creation/evolution fight is firing up in the UK again. Should creationism be taught in schools? It's about time something was! They get precious little science education these days.
I've thought about this a lot over the years and my conclusion is... I don't care.
I don't care if this planet is six billion years old, six thousand years old, or was created as an illusion just before I was born simply to annoy me. Which it does. Every day. I don't care if dinosaurs roamed the earth. They don't now and that's good enough for me. Being stepped on by a careless brachiosaur is one risk I'm happy to lose from my daily routine. If I was a palaeontologist I would care, but I'm not, so I don't.
Was it deliberately created or was it formed through random physical accumulation of bits of stone? Doesn't matter. It's here now and it'll still be here long after I'm finished with it. Long after everyone has finished with it.
Then again, as a scientist, shouldn't I be violently and religiously opposed to teaching children creationism?
I would be opposed to teaching it in science class because science isn't taught in church. That's a matter of being fair about it. I would have no objection whatsoever to teaching it in schools, whether it was in religion class or in a new class entitled 'alternative science' where they could also learn about things like homeopathy and feng shui and make up their own minds about it all.
That 'making up their own minds' part is the reason I don't oppose it. I oppose any attempt - by anyone - to force their own view of the world on others. Especially in schools. Schools should be places of learning and should include things I don't believe are right as well as things I do. What if I'm wrong? What if I were to spend my life forcing schools to teach only those things I believe are important, and then find out I was wrong?
When you get right down to it, we have religion saying 'God made the universe' and science saying 'It just sort of happened'. Not much to choose, really. A big bang, or 'let there be light', which are the same thing in the end.
For almost everyone on the planet it simply doesn't matter. A bricklayer isn't going to be affected one jot if the big bang is right and religion is wrong, or vice versa. An accountant won't find his numbers suddenly change from base 10 to base 13 if the story of the flood is finally proven or disproven. The reality is, the entire issue matters at all to very few people. It affects a few very specific scientific disciplines and it affects a few religious doctrines which aren't going to change anyway.
Which is right, science or religion? Sometimes it matters. If I ever get cancer I'd put my trust in chemotherapy over prayer, but would I refuse to let people pray for me? No I wouldn't. I don't believe it would work but I don't have proof that it won't. It won't harm me to try. Even so, I wouldn't refuse the chemotherapy and rely entirely on prayer.
With creation, it really doesn't matter which is right. Don't we all have enough problems without arguing about where we came from? I'm more interested in where we're going because with the current state of the world, it doesn't look like it's going to be Disneyland.
In schools, children should have the opportunity to learn everything. Everything. Even stuff I personally think is complete nonsense which can't possibly be true, like Marxism and Belgium. Armed with all the information they can hold, they can then decide which to trust and which to discard. For themselves. Like people used to do in the old days before they all decided to let someone else tell them what to think.
Few of those children will become priests and few will become scientists who study evolution. For them, the argument matters.
For the others, the ones who become architects and plumbers and bankers and electricians and even those who become chemists and most other kinds of scientist, it really doesn't matter at all. There is no conflict in being a chemist who believes in God. Not even a biochemist. The two mindsets are not mutualy exclusive at all.
Although I would caution against any scientist, faced with inexplicable results, writing a paper that concludes 'God did it'. Most scientific journals need a little more detail.
Teach those kids everything. Let them decide.
Although, looking at education in the UK at the moment, perhaps that should be 'Teach them something'.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Propellors in the fog.
Did you ever see that John Carpenter film 'The Fog'? Ghostly pirates come in with the sea-fog to take revenge on the descendants of their enemies. Great fun.
Now you can experience a creepy fog around the British coast, courtesy of modern garden ornaments posing as technology.
I'm all in favour of renewable energy but the simple fact is, these things don't work. The wind is not a reliable source. If there's no wind, there's no power. If there's too much wind, they have to be locked down or they'll break. That's why their power generation is always written as 'up to'. A lot of the time, it's zero. Much is made of Scandinavian use of these windmills but little is mentioned of their high cost of electricity, nor of how much they have to pay for imported power when the wind stops.
As for green credentials, has nobody ever wondered how a windmill on a 60-metre stick can stand up in the wind and not even sway? There is an enormous block of concrete under each and every one of them. Add that into the steel production to make and maintain them and they'll produce more emissions than they'll ever save.
There is one killer argument against these things that's rarely mentioned but there's a bit of a giveaway in the article. The fog forms because the rotating blades mix the warm wet air near the sea surface with the cold air above them. However, that can't happen when it's windy because the wind will just blow the fog away. How can they be rotating if there's no wind?
They are rotating because it's sunny. Those long blades will warp in the sun's heat so they have to rotate to even out the heating across their surfaces. When there's no wind they are rotated by powering them with electricity. Not only are they producing no power under those circumstances, they are actually using it!
Still, they do produce a very creepy fog.
I don't know why we aren't working more on tidal power. The tide is not variable, it happens all the time, never stops and never will. The UK isn't a particularly good place for solar power and wind is very variable, from weeks of no wind to gale-force blasts. The tide is the most reliable thing we have.
I wonder if anyone's thought of rain power? We do get an awful lot of that. Turbines in every downpipe, maybe?
Could be worth thinking about. I have some downpipes that will soon need to be replaced anyway. I wonder how hard it would be to fit a waterwheel?
Now you can experience a creepy fog around the British coast, courtesy of modern garden ornaments posing as technology.
I'm all in favour of renewable energy but the simple fact is, these things don't work. The wind is not a reliable source. If there's no wind, there's no power. If there's too much wind, they have to be locked down or they'll break. That's why their power generation is always written as 'up to'. A lot of the time, it's zero. Much is made of Scandinavian use of these windmills but little is mentioned of their high cost of electricity, nor of how much they have to pay for imported power when the wind stops.
As for green credentials, has nobody ever wondered how a windmill on a 60-metre stick can stand up in the wind and not even sway? There is an enormous block of concrete under each and every one of them. Add that into the steel production to make and maintain them and they'll produce more emissions than they'll ever save.
There is one killer argument against these things that's rarely mentioned but there's a bit of a giveaway in the article. The fog forms because the rotating blades mix the warm wet air near the sea surface with the cold air above them. However, that can't happen when it's windy because the wind will just blow the fog away. How can they be rotating if there's no wind?
They are rotating because it's sunny. Those long blades will warp in the sun's heat so they have to rotate to even out the heating across their surfaces. When there's no wind they are rotated by powering them with electricity. Not only are they producing no power under those circumstances, they are actually using it!
Still, they do produce a very creepy fog.
I don't know why we aren't working more on tidal power. The tide is not variable, it happens all the time, never stops and never will. The UK isn't a particularly good place for solar power and wind is very variable, from weeks of no wind to gale-force blasts. The tide is the most reliable thing we have.
I wonder if anyone's thought of rain power? We do get an awful lot of that. Turbines in every downpipe, maybe?
Could be worth thinking about. I have some downpipes that will soon need to be replaced anyway. I wonder how hard it would be to fit a waterwheel?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The beautiful people.
It's snowing. Again. The last lot had only just melted away and it's all coming back again. It's enough to make you believe that ice crystals reincarnate.
So, no investigating for the time being, therefore lots of time to browse the papers for some news that doesn't involve something getting banned or some vicious criminal getting let off with a warning while the old lady who tried to stop him goes to jail. Such stories are getting hard to find.
One story claims that Americans are the most attractive people in the world. I've never visited. Perhaps I should. The average British street has some very attractive people in it too, but also a high proportion of those who look like extras from Lord of the Rings. The kind who didn't need makeup to play orcs. We also have a Prime Minister with a face like a bag of spanners and the temperament of a Siamese cat that has been forcibly hurled into a patch of wet nettles, as well as an entire government that seems to have been selected on the basis of repellence in both features and personality, which can't help the average at all.
I haven't met many Americans, which I suppose is a consequence of not having been to America as well as a natural dislike of social situations that might have people in them. The few I've met have proved to be very pleasant people indeed, as have all those I've had occasion to communicate with over the internet. So from my own limited sample set, Americans come out well above the British.
It's not really a fair comparison, because I've never met or communicated with American lunatic fundamentalists with one-issue crusades like the Westboro Baptist Church or Al Gore, whereas I have unfortunately met many British idiots. We do seem to have more than our share. Somehow, they even manage to get into positions of power. Okay, Americans sometimes elect idiots too, and so do other countries, but only in Britain do we seem to make it a condition of employment. We now have councils who fine people because someone else has scrawled graffiti on their walls or because their bins are filled just a little too much. We have a government who are in uncountable debt but are more concerned about writing 'warning - this drink contains drink' on wine bottles bought only by people who already know exactly what's inside. This country has gone from being a world power with an empire that spanned the globe into what can most generously be described as 'a silly place'.
Maybe Americans are the most attractive people in the world. Maybe that's down to plastic surgery and Vogue magazine's insistence on perfection. Maybe it's because they aren't as maniacally paranoid as most current British people. America has ugly loonies too, but we Brits have, I'm sure, the ugliest and the looniest.
At least we are still world leaders at something.
So, no investigating for the time being, therefore lots of time to browse the papers for some news that doesn't involve something getting banned or some vicious criminal getting let off with a warning while the old lady who tried to stop him goes to jail. Such stories are getting hard to find.
One story claims that Americans are the most attractive people in the world. I've never visited. Perhaps I should. The average British street has some very attractive people in it too, but also a high proportion of those who look like extras from Lord of the Rings. The kind who didn't need makeup to play orcs. We also have a Prime Minister with a face like a bag of spanners and the temperament of a Siamese cat that has been forcibly hurled into a patch of wet nettles, as well as an entire government that seems to have been selected on the basis of repellence in both features and personality, which can't help the average at all.
I haven't met many Americans, which I suppose is a consequence of not having been to America as well as a natural dislike of social situations that might have people in them. The few I've met have proved to be very pleasant people indeed, as have all those I've had occasion to communicate with over the internet. So from my own limited sample set, Americans come out well above the British.
It's not really a fair comparison, because I've never met or communicated with American lunatic fundamentalists with one-issue crusades like the Westboro Baptist Church or Al Gore, whereas I have unfortunately met many British idiots. We do seem to have more than our share. Somehow, they even manage to get into positions of power. Okay, Americans sometimes elect idiots too, and so do other countries, but only in Britain do we seem to make it a condition of employment. We now have councils who fine people because someone else has scrawled graffiti on their walls or because their bins are filled just a little too much. We have a government who are in uncountable debt but are more concerned about writing 'warning - this drink contains drink' on wine bottles bought only by people who already know exactly what's inside. This country has gone from being a world power with an empire that spanned the globe into what can most generously be described as 'a silly place'.
Maybe Americans are the most attractive people in the world. Maybe that's down to plastic surgery and Vogue magazine's insistence on perfection. Maybe it's because they aren't as maniacally paranoid as most current British people. America has ugly loonies too, but we Brits have, I'm sure, the ugliest and the looniest.
At least we are still world leaders at something.
Monday, February 15, 2010
A new ghost pic.
Gwrych castle, in Abergele (if you're not Welsh, it's best not to attempt pronounciation. Untrained attempts at the language can be fatal), has long been regarded as a haunted place. Now there's a new and very clear photo of a girl at a first floor window.
It looks like a reflection in the glass, of someone standing outside, but if you click on the arrows below the photo in that article, it's clear there's nobody outside.
A couple of notable points:
a) In the UK, 'first floor' is upstairs. I believe in many places, 'first floor' is the one at ground level. In the UK we call that 'ground floor' and start numbering above it.
b) There's no floor in that room. Most of the castle is a ruin and unsafe. If she's a dressed-up fake, she must be on a pretty tall stepladder and since she's not holding on to anything, she must have nerves of steel. The floor she should have been standing on is now a mass of rubble on the floor below.
So it's a hard one to explain away. She can't be a reflection from outside unless you accept both levitation and corporeal invisibility as realities. She can't be standing inside because there's nothing to stand on. Photoshop? Well it could be done in photoshop but the photographer is not a ghost hunter, is making no money or publicity (the article says he's a company boss but doesn't name the company) and has no obvious motive to produce a fake.
She's not explainable by pixellation or pareidolia. Far too clear an image. Her manner of dress is nondescript, could be 18th century or could be yesterday.
I can't explain this one away or find any non-ghostly explanation other than photoshop, and you can apply 'photoshop' to any ghost photo that has ever been or will ever be produced since the invention of the computer. So that's no help.
It's a pity he used digital rather than film. Then again, film is harder and harder to find these days.
Looks like it could well be genuine to me. If it's not genuine, then it would have to be deliberately faked, and I can't see any reason for this photographer to do that. Some of the comments below the article cry 'fake' but they have not (so far) provided any real explanation. They're just the sort who would cry 'fake' if a ghost poked them in the eye.
Take a look while you can. Newspapers tend to drop older stories to make way for new ones and the images are copyright-locked so I can't copy them here.
Nice to see the paranormal getting in the news again. It's been a while.
It looks like a reflection in the glass, of someone standing outside, but if you click on the arrows below the photo in that article, it's clear there's nobody outside.
A couple of notable points:
a) In the UK, 'first floor' is upstairs. I believe in many places, 'first floor' is the one at ground level. In the UK we call that 'ground floor' and start numbering above it.
b) There's no floor in that room. Most of the castle is a ruin and unsafe. If she's a dressed-up fake, she must be on a pretty tall stepladder and since she's not holding on to anything, she must have nerves of steel. The floor she should have been standing on is now a mass of rubble on the floor below.
So it's a hard one to explain away. She can't be a reflection from outside unless you accept both levitation and corporeal invisibility as realities. She can't be standing inside because there's nothing to stand on. Photoshop? Well it could be done in photoshop but the photographer is not a ghost hunter, is making no money or publicity (the article says he's a company boss but doesn't name the company) and has no obvious motive to produce a fake.
She's not explainable by pixellation or pareidolia. Far too clear an image. Her manner of dress is nondescript, could be 18th century or could be yesterday.
I can't explain this one away or find any non-ghostly explanation other than photoshop, and you can apply 'photoshop' to any ghost photo that has ever been or will ever be produced since the invention of the computer. So that's no help.
It's a pity he used digital rather than film. Then again, film is harder and harder to find these days.
Looks like it could well be genuine to me. If it's not genuine, then it would have to be deliberately faked, and I can't see any reason for this photographer to do that. Some of the comments below the article cry 'fake' but they have not (so far) provided any real explanation. They're just the sort who would cry 'fake' if a ghost poked them in the eye.
Take a look while you can. Newspapers tend to drop older stories to make way for new ones and the images are copyright-locked so I can't copy them here.
Nice to see the paranormal getting in the news again. It's been a while.
What a world.
I've decided to start smoking again. The advent of third hand smoke, where non-smokers can be harmed by the mere whiff of tobacco odour on a smoker who has come back inside after being forced out into sub zero temperatures to partake of a legal activity, has convinced me. There are too many feeble idiots in the world now. If there is a God, it's time for another flood. This time, no ark.
There's just no point trying to be nice to these people any more. They aren't worth the effort. I'm going out tomorrow to buy some real cigars and smoke them at home while it's still legal. Moves are already afoot to make it illegal to smoke cigars in my own car or my own home. I will disobey those laws. Enough is enough.
Should I be scared of the authorities? Really? Look at what I have to fear. A police force who refused to enter a river to save a trapped child because health and safety law said they might be at risk of getting a bit cold and wet. I'm supposed to respect and fear weak and worthless people like these? I will not.
I am not a strong swimmer. If I had been there I would have tried. I might have failed and had to be rescued too, I might have suffered the embarrassment of spending time in hospital and I might even have died.
Better that than to live with the memory of watching a child freeze in a river for NINETY MINUTES because a set of rules was more important than a child's life. These people expect to be respected and obeyed. I think they should be shot.
So I will go back to smoking. It might shorten my life, it might not. It is a small act of rebellion against a country that is increasingly full of bubble-wrapped automatons who follow the rules, fear everything that exists and believe every piece of rubbish that is spouted by alleged experts who demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about.
I might not live so long as I would as a non-smoker, but I'll be a lot more relaxed about it.
I don't currently see a downside to that. This is not a world worth persisting with.
There's just no point trying to be nice to these people any more. They aren't worth the effort. I'm going out tomorrow to buy some real cigars and smoke them at home while it's still legal. Moves are already afoot to make it illegal to smoke cigars in my own car or my own home. I will disobey those laws. Enough is enough.
Should I be scared of the authorities? Really? Look at what I have to fear. A police force who refused to enter a river to save a trapped child because health and safety law said they might be at risk of getting a bit cold and wet. I'm supposed to respect and fear weak and worthless people like these? I will not.
I am not a strong swimmer. If I had been there I would have tried. I might have failed and had to be rescued too, I might have suffered the embarrassment of spending time in hospital and I might even have died.
Better that than to live with the memory of watching a child freeze in a river for NINETY MINUTES because a set of rules was more important than a child's life. These people expect to be respected and obeyed. I think they should be shot.
So I will go back to smoking. It might shorten my life, it might not. It is a small act of rebellion against a country that is increasingly full of bubble-wrapped automatons who follow the rules, fear everything that exists and believe every piece of rubbish that is spouted by alleged experts who demonstrably have no idea what they are talking about.
I might not live so long as I would as a non-smoker, but I'll be a lot more relaxed about it.
I don't currently see a downside to that. This is not a world worth persisting with.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Killer Cat?
Many old religions revere cats. They were sometimes said to be connected with guiding the dead into the afterlife. Witches were usually assumed to be habitual cat-keepers. Cats and the supernatural have always been linked. It's not surprising. Cats are weird things.
Even so, it's a surprise to find one that can reliably predict who is going to die.
He's very good at it, apparently. So is he predicting, or is he a furry little serial killer?
Either way, I hope he stays away from me.
Even so, it's a surprise to find one that can reliably predict who is going to die.
He's very good at it, apparently. So is he predicting, or is he a furry little serial killer?
Either way, I hope he stays away from me.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Not so simple.
It's still snow here and tonight the light rain has turned the street into a skating rink. I'm not driving on that. There are signs of melting so maybe, soon, life can get back to normal.
So I've been browsing and I keep coming up against the question 'can it be too cold to snow?'
The obvious answer is - if it could, there'd be no snow in the Arctic or the Antarctic. So it can't. And yet the pseudoeducated keep coming up with 'Yes it can'. Their argument is that at sub-zero temperatures, the air cannot hold enough moisture to produce any precipitation.
*sigh*
It's partly true, and that's why it rains/snows. The argument requires a static system and we don't have one. Air moves about. The technical term for this is 'wind'. In warmer regions, air picks up moisture. When moisture-laden air moves into colder regions, the moisture drops out. Depending on the temperature of the colder region, it could drop out as clouds, rain, snow or hail. Warm and cold are relative terms so the moisture content of air at zero degrees will drop out if the air cools to negative degrees. All that matters is the difference in temperature, not the absolute temperature itself.
So the argument that cold air can't hold moisture is not a justification of the 'too cold to snow' myth. It's an explanation of why snow (and rain) happens at all. Warm wet air comes into a colder region and the moisture it contains precipitates. That's how come it can snow in Antarctica at temperatures in double figures below zero.
It cannot be too cold to snow. It all depends on whether incoming air was warmer before it arrived.
The other thing I found was centrifugal force, which I was told at school was a myth.
Perhaps not.
So I've been browsing and I keep coming up against the question 'can it be too cold to snow?'
The obvious answer is - if it could, there'd be no snow in the Arctic or the Antarctic. So it can't. And yet the pseudoeducated keep coming up with 'Yes it can'. Their argument is that at sub-zero temperatures, the air cannot hold enough moisture to produce any precipitation.
*sigh*
It's partly true, and that's why it rains/snows. The argument requires a static system and we don't have one. Air moves about. The technical term for this is 'wind'. In warmer regions, air picks up moisture. When moisture-laden air moves into colder regions, the moisture drops out. Depending on the temperature of the colder region, it could drop out as clouds, rain, snow or hail. Warm and cold are relative terms so the moisture content of air at zero degrees will drop out if the air cools to negative degrees. All that matters is the difference in temperature, not the absolute temperature itself.
So the argument that cold air can't hold moisture is not a justification of the 'too cold to snow' myth. It's an explanation of why snow (and rain) happens at all. Warm wet air comes into a colder region and the moisture it contains precipitates. That's how come it can snow in Antarctica at temperatures in double figures below zero.
It cannot be too cold to snow. It all depends on whether incoming air was warmer before it arrived.
The other thing I found was centrifugal force, which I was told at school was a myth.
Perhaps not.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Infuriating.
It's still snowing here. There were a few days of thaw in which my pond melted enough to let three dead fish surface but it's been iced over for almost three months and I have doubts that I'll see any survivors in spring. I have never before had a fish die of freezing. One of those fish has been in there for over ten years. He's not dead yet, I hope, but he'll be getting lonely soon unless the global warmers can produce what they promise. So far they have produced the opposite, garnished with lies.
Nothing ghostly to report. I, like other investigators, look out at the weather and think 'No, sod it'. We're not freezing to death on the off-chance of catching a photo which, let's face it, is down to luck and will be called a fake anyway. Besides, the chances of joining the dead are enhanced by black ice and lack of grit on the roads. There's no point in proving the existence of the afterlife when you're already in it.
So I'll have to find something else to talk about. There's no way I'm going ghosthunting in temperatures like this.
I don't want to be one, not just yet.
Nothing ghostly to report. I, like other investigators, look out at the weather and think 'No, sod it'. We're not freezing to death on the off-chance of catching a photo which, let's face it, is down to luck and will be called a fake anyway. Besides, the chances of joining the dead are enhanced by black ice and lack of grit on the roads. There's no point in proving the existence of the afterlife when you're already in it.
So I'll have to find something else to talk about. There's no way I'm going ghosthunting in temperatures like this.
I don't want to be one, not just yet.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Aliens aren't coming.
There has been a resurgence in the world of science, in the hunt for extraterrestrial life. Articles are appearing everywhere. One article complains that the conversion from analogue to digital transmission means the aliens can't find us any more. We aren't broadcasting on a wide range of frequencies now. Well, that might not be a bad thing because there's also speculation that any aliens who do visit might not be friendly. An open-house policy might not be the best policy.
"We might like to assume that if there is intelligent life out there it is wise and benevolent, but of course we have no evidence for this. "
Why would anyone assume that? Look around at the dominant species here. Wise and benevolent? I think not, overall, and any alien assuming that of us would be in for a very unpleasant surpirse.
Perhaps the aliens will simply move in and take all the oil, coal and gold. Would we do it to them? Yes. Immediately after we tried to buy their planet with some shiny beads. If there are aliens and if they are benevolent and trusting, they'll rue the day they met the human race.
Even the Royal Society is taking the idea of alien life seriously now. They've always considered it all 'woo' but no longer, it seems. Well, when a venerable scientific institution decides to look at something that's only in the realms of possibility at this stage, there is hope for science in general.
I have my own ideas of why aliens don't visit us or transmit to us. Look at how we treat people of our own species who are different. You don't even need to go as far as racism or sexism. Too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, likes a smoke, likes a drink, drives the wrong kind of car, has the wrong accent, believes something different, votes for the wrong politician and so on. We are nasty to each other because of differences an alien race wouldn't even be able to detect.
What would they imagine we'd do to them, an entirely different species?
Maybe they are receiving our transmissions and thinking 'Look out, it's the humans! Hide!' Who could blame them?
"We might like to assume that if there is intelligent life out there it is wise and benevolent, but of course we have no evidence for this. "
Why would anyone assume that? Look around at the dominant species here. Wise and benevolent? I think not, overall, and any alien assuming that of us would be in for a very unpleasant surpirse.
Perhaps the aliens will simply move in and take all the oil, coal and gold. Would we do it to them? Yes. Immediately after we tried to buy their planet with some shiny beads. If there are aliens and if they are benevolent and trusting, they'll rue the day they met the human race.
Even the Royal Society is taking the idea of alien life seriously now. They've always considered it all 'woo' but no longer, it seems. Well, when a venerable scientific institution decides to look at something that's only in the realms of possibility at this stage, there is hope for science in general.
I have my own ideas of why aliens don't visit us or transmit to us. Look at how we treat people of our own species who are different. You don't even need to go as far as racism or sexism. Too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, likes a smoke, likes a drink, drives the wrong kind of car, has the wrong accent, believes something different, votes for the wrong politician and so on. We are nasty to each other because of differences an alien race wouldn't even be able to detect.
What would they imagine we'd do to them, an entirely different species?
Maybe they are receiving our transmissions and thinking 'Look out, it's the humans! Hide!' Who could blame them?
There might be another one.
Or there might not.
That only covers the USA and I don't live there so if there is one, it's not me.
Anyone know him?
| HowManyOfMe.com | ||
|
That only covers the USA and I don't live there so if there is one, it's not me.
Anyone know him?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Tax month
I've just filled in my tax return and quailed at how much they want. In advance!
No wonder small businesses collapse in their first year here. We have to pay tax for next year as well as this year, even though we don't yet know how much we'll make next year.
That's why everyone who fills out a tax return leaves it until the last week of January. The tax has to be paid on the 31st of this month and the next year's tax is based on this year's earnings.
You can reduce your tax on account but if you reduce it too much you'll get fined. Therefore everyone is filling in tax forms this week because it's not possible to predict income any earlier than this. It's risky even now!
Soon it'll be over and I can get back to normal, but January is, and always will be, a bad time to talk to any UK self-employed business.
Our government really don't like us very much.
No wonder small businesses collapse in their first year here. We have to pay tax for next year as well as this year, even though we don't yet know how much we'll make next year.
That's why everyone who fills out a tax return leaves it until the last week of January. The tax has to be paid on the 31st of this month and the next year's tax is based on this year's earnings.
You can reduce your tax on account but if you reduce it too much you'll get fined. Therefore everyone is filling in tax forms this week because it's not possible to predict income any earlier than this. It's risky even now!
Soon it'll be over and I can get back to normal, but January is, and always will be, a bad time to talk to any UK self-employed business.
Our government really don't like us very much.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Real Green
I've been reading about the Potosi, a five-masted square-rigged ship built in 1895 with a steel hull. The best Internet link I can find is here. Yes, the weather is still dreadful here so I'm not going out.
This ship weighed 4000 tons. Proper British tons, not those French tonnes we have to use now. It could carry 6000 tons of cargo so when at sea it was ten thousand tons of stuff and all the sail meant it could do 14 knots and surprise a steamer or two that tried to cut across its bows.
It sailed from Germany to America, round the bottom of Africa and on to India and back to Europe twice a year.
Guess how much fuel it used?
None at all. It had no engine. It was entirely powered by sail.
Now, I'm not going to say that all those container ships and oil ships must do the same even though six of them produce more pollution than all the cars in the world, but consider...
The container and oil ships are huge. Far longer and wider than Potosi. They could have a few masts and sails and just think - when the wind's in the right direction they'd need no fuel. They could travel for free. When the wind is going the wrong way they could use their engines but imagine - free transport for a lot of the trip.
Go on, ship owners. You know you want to think about it at least.
Stuff the carbon trading. There is a way to transport your goods for free and in the current world climate you'll get massive kudos for doing it.
It'll make the ships more interesting too.
This ship weighed 4000 tons. Proper British tons, not those French tonnes we have to use now. It could carry 6000 tons of cargo so when at sea it was ten thousand tons of stuff and all the sail meant it could do 14 knots and surprise a steamer or two that tried to cut across its bows.
It sailed from Germany to America, round the bottom of Africa and on to India and back to Europe twice a year.
Guess how much fuel it used?
None at all. It had no engine. It was entirely powered by sail.
Now, I'm not going to say that all those container ships and oil ships must do the same even though six of them produce more pollution than all the cars in the world, but consider...
The container and oil ships are huge. Far longer and wider than Potosi. They could have a few masts and sails and just think - when the wind's in the right direction they'd need no fuel. They could travel for free. When the wind is going the wrong way they could use their engines but imagine - free transport for a lot of the trip.
Go on, ship owners. You know you want to think about it at least.
Stuff the carbon trading. There is a way to transport your goods for free and in the current world climate you'll get massive kudos for doing it.
It'll make the ships more interesting too.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Snow and ships.
There's been a lot more snow since I took the photo and it's still coming down. It's very pretty but I won't be investigating anything until it's gone.
Just Peachie once asked if weather affected ghostly manifestations. I'm not sure although there have been reports of weather-linked phenomena, usually during, or just before, an electrical storm.
It's certainly true that weather affects the reporting of phenomena - because there are few hardy enough to go out and look for any ghosts in weather like this! It's reaching -20C (-2F) routinely here at night and rarely getting above freezing during the day. Roads are deadly, you can't even walk safely anywhere and there is no way I'm spending a night out in those temperatures.
So I've occupied my time with something else. Over a year ago, someone gave me an old model of a ship. They gave it to me because I build these for fun and it was on the condition that I restore it. Here it is - it's 'The Prince' as it was around 1670, after a rebuild that gave it more guns.
The structure was in decent shape, flagpoles and extremities were broken but easily repairable. The big issue was the rigging. This is an old model, built when houses had coal fires and humidity indoors was higher. What seems to have happened is that modern central heating has dried the thread and shrunk it so the rigging has snapped, or has pulled its moorings away. I can tell where most of it should go and I have some pictures of correctly-rigged models as a guide.
The first problem was the rigging thread. I ran out after re-rigging the bowsprit and foremast and couldn't get a perfect match. I now have a pretty close match that I hope won't be noticeable after it's been waxed. I run the thread through a block of beeswax to waterproof it because if it gets damp it'll stretch and sag, and if it gets too dry it'll shrink and break again.
Then there was the pulley blocks. On this model, the ropes run through wooden blocks representing pulleys and a lot were missing. I couldn't find any for sale and had just about resigned myself to trying to make some when I came across this site. All that time, and when I found them I bought a bag of 50 pulleys for £3.20 (less than five dollars). So I can now finish this and I'm snowed in so might as well get on with it.
The site has a lot of interesting stuff, very cheap. This ship will have a few extra cannons when it's done.
The paintwork needs attention but matching that will be hard. I might leave it alone.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Irony.
It's often said that Americans don't understand the British sense of humour because the American psyche doesn't 'get' irony. I don't think that's true. I've met several Americans and most of them understand the concept perfectly well.
The ones who should be on irony alert these days seem to be the British media. For today, without a hint of a smirk, Sky News carries two stories.
One describes how climate change (aka global warming) will be of benefit to farmers because it'll make it easier to grow crops. Demonstrating a spectacular lack of understanding of current British agriculture, a former president of the National Farmer's Union said:
"Maize, which has only really been seen in the south, will start to be grown further north, as will soft fruits like strawberries and raspberries, and more grape varieties will become viable in much of the UK."
I live north of Aberdeen. My garden grows strawberries and raspberries and plums and blueberries already, and has done for years. I didn't even plant the raspberries. They are wild ones. The problem we have here is not the cold - because it's not cold in the summer. The problem is the length of daylight hours. Crops that can be completed before the days shorten will grow perfectly well. Crops that need a few more weeks of daylight won't make it, no matter how warm it gets. Climate change won't change that.
Anyway, the govenrment plans to take control of farming because they think they know more about it than farmers. I think I'd better plant more vegetables this year.
Along with the standard 'it's going to get warmer' story we've heard for about a decade with no tangible effects, Sky news has one on the current weather situation in the UK.
It's the coldest winter for a hundred years. Fountains in London are frozen over. I can't remember the last time that happened. The whole country is at a standstill, power supplies can't cope and road grit is in short supply because nobody stocked up... because everyone believed there would be no more harsh winters because the world was warming.
I don't think sacking the people who made up the hockey stick graph is enough. I think they should be prosecuted. People are dying in the cold here because the authorities actually fell for the 'grapes growing in Scotland' stories and made preparations for the mildest of winters. This current cold is forecast to last well into January and beyond. It's hit -18C (-2F) in places and that's without windchill. Roads are unploughed, ungritted and impassable. We used to cope perfectly well with this kind of weather - before the climate criminals convinced everyone they'd never need the ploughs and grit again.
Both stories from the same source on the same day. Don't tell me Americans don't get irony. British news sources certainly don't.
Oh, and if you still plan to convince people that global warming is more than just a profitable scam, I'd wait a month or two if I were you. Trying it today could get you a punch in the face.
The ones who should be on irony alert these days seem to be the British media. For today, without a hint of a smirk, Sky News carries two stories.
One describes how climate change (aka global warming) will be of benefit to farmers because it'll make it easier to grow crops. Demonstrating a spectacular lack of understanding of current British agriculture, a former president of the National Farmer's Union said:
"Maize, which has only really been seen in the south, will start to be grown further north, as will soft fruits like strawberries and raspberries, and more grape varieties will become viable in much of the UK."
I live north of Aberdeen. My garden grows strawberries and raspberries and plums and blueberries already, and has done for years. I didn't even plant the raspberries. They are wild ones. The problem we have here is not the cold - because it's not cold in the summer. The problem is the length of daylight hours. Crops that can be completed before the days shorten will grow perfectly well. Crops that need a few more weeks of daylight won't make it, no matter how warm it gets. Climate change won't change that.
Anyway, the govenrment plans to take control of farming because they think they know more about it than farmers. I think I'd better plant more vegetables this year.
Along with the standard 'it's going to get warmer' story we've heard for about a decade with no tangible effects, Sky news has one on the current weather situation in the UK.
It's the coldest winter for a hundred years. Fountains in London are frozen over. I can't remember the last time that happened. The whole country is at a standstill, power supplies can't cope and road grit is in short supply because nobody stocked up... because everyone believed there would be no more harsh winters because the world was warming.
I don't think sacking the people who made up the hockey stick graph is enough. I think they should be prosecuted. People are dying in the cold here because the authorities actually fell for the 'grapes growing in Scotland' stories and made preparations for the mildest of winters. This current cold is forecast to last well into January and beyond. It's hit -18C (-2F) in places and that's without windchill. Roads are unploughed, ungritted and impassable. We used to cope perfectly well with this kind of weather - before the climate criminals convinced everyone they'd never need the ploughs and grit again.
Both stories from the same source on the same day. Don't tell me Americans don't get irony. British news sources certainly don't.
Oh, and if you still plan to convince people that global warming is more than just a profitable scam, I'd wait a month or two if I were you. Trying it today could get you a punch in the face.
The UK is a land of walking corpses.
Apparently.
If this video is correct, the UK government declared the entire population legally dead in 1666, while the Fire of London raged. That law is still in force. This is therefore Zombieland because we're all legally dead.
So the State owns everything we think we own. We have seven years to present ourselves as living beings and claim our entitlement or the State keeps it.
The thing is, it's seven years from the date of your birth. Not seven years from when you find out about it! So nobody has claimed and nobody is likely to.
Legally, we exist only as fictional entities who are permanently in debt even though our currency doesn't exist either, and we are always guilty in court. There are three more videos and it looks like there'll be more. I'll be looking out for them.
Searching for dead people on the internet throws up some interesting stuff sometimes. This particular stuff is scarier than any ghost.
If this video is correct, the UK government declared the entire population legally dead in 1666, while the Fire of London raged. That law is still in force. This is therefore Zombieland because we're all legally dead.
So the State owns everything we think we own. We have seven years to present ourselves as living beings and claim our entitlement or the State keeps it.
The thing is, it's seven years from the date of your birth. Not seven years from when you find out about it! So nobody has claimed and nobody is likely to.
Legally, we exist only as fictional entities who are permanently in debt even though our currency doesn't exist either, and we are always guilty in court. There are three more videos and it looks like there'll be more. I'll be looking out for them.
Searching for dead people on the internet throws up some interesting stuff sometimes. This particular stuff is scarier than any ghost.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)