“ Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”Philip K. Dick
“ When you argue with reality, you lose - but only 100% of the time.”Byron Katie
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Quote of the day
Diana Inquest ‘unlawful killing’ by Driver and Paparazzi
The result is in for the inquest on Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed. The latest figure I heard for UK public money spent in relation to the deaths to date is £10 million. The chance of this being the final figure is I would suggest vanishingly small. This presubably does not include French Taxpayers money also spent.
The decision? What most rational individuals had concluded was the case within a very short time.
A driver who was under the influence in a heady atmosphere who liked to pump his own self importance by dropping hints. A ravening pack of paparazzi. An escape plan that didn’t come off and probably didn’t allow for the drivers impairment and was agreed not allowing for it. All these factors came together disastrously and randomly with a difficult section of road resulting in a crash.
The driver’s condition, behaviour and the behaviour of the paparazzi being the primary causes and being so reckless, so negligent, ("gross negligence") as to be unlawful.
The driver paid the ultimate price for his folly along with two of his passengers and is beyond the reach of the law. The paparazzi have successfully muddied the waters so it is impossible to tell with sufficient certainty who out of them were to blame enough to be prosecuted with any hope of success.
There are already indications that Mohammed Fayed is not satisfied with this result - But then he never will be satisfied with anything that fails to absolve him, if it’s the truth or not.
The fact is that driver of the vehicle who according to best evidence had drunk a fair bit and was on pills, was his man. He had apparently OK’d the plan that resulted in the crash with Fayed Senior. It seems that Dodi Fayed also checked in with him and agreed it.
Mohammed Fayed is, in a significant part, much of the reason the investigation has dragged on for so long and cost so much. The ‘if onlys’ must be eating at him and one can’t help but sympathise, for all that his behaviour in court and out, in relation to the matter, appeared so bizarre - But that doesn’t entitle him to cause the waste of any more public money.
Leave it to the tin foil hat squad now. If Mohamed Fayed chooses to become one with them then that is his mistake and his choice.
The decision? What most rational individuals had concluded was the case within a very short time.
A driver who was under the influence in a heady atmosphere who liked to pump his own self importance by dropping hints. A ravening pack of paparazzi. An escape plan that didn’t come off and probably didn’t allow for the drivers impairment and was agreed not allowing for it. All these factors came together disastrously and randomly with a difficult section of road resulting in a crash.
The driver’s condition, behaviour and the behaviour of the paparazzi being the primary causes and being so reckless, so negligent, ("gross negligence") as to be unlawful.
The driver paid the ultimate price for his folly along with two of his passengers and is beyond the reach of the law. The paparazzi have successfully muddied the waters so it is impossible to tell with sufficient certainty who out of them were to blame enough to be prosecuted with any hope of success.
There are already indications that Mohammed Fayed is not satisfied with this result - But then he never will be satisfied with anything that fails to absolve him, if it’s the truth or not.
The fact is that driver of the vehicle who according to best evidence had drunk a fair bit and was on pills, was his man. He had apparently OK’d the plan that resulted in the crash with Fayed Senior. It seems that Dodi Fayed also checked in with him and agreed it.
Mohammed Fayed is, in a significant part, much of the reason the investigation has dragged on for so long and cost so much. The ‘if onlys’ must be eating at him and one can’t help but sympathise, for all that his behaviour in court and out, in relation to the matter, appeared so bizarre - But that doesn’t entitle him to cause the waste of any more public money.
Leave it to the tin foil hat squad now. If Mohamed Fayed chooses to become one with them then that is his mistake and his choice.
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.”Ayn Rand
Police threaten to shoot legal team seeking order to release election results in Zimbabwe
Things do not look good for Zimbabwe.
Clearly its ruler Robert Mugabe and his cronies have no intention of giving up power. They have used the police to prevent opposition legal representatives entering court to apply for an order forcing the release of presidential election results. They went so far as threatening to shoot them if they went into court.
Zimbabwe is effectively close to being a police dictatorship, masquerading as a supposed democracy, where the results can be faked, as it’s ruler wishes. He seems to be taking a leaf out of the EU's book having presumably noted how they handle referendums.
Something went wrong this time, maybe Mugabe and his government actually believed their own lies, they misjudged the strength of feeling against them, the people briefly actually got a chance to really express their will and they lost badly. They are now working out how to correct that.
Sadly all this is apparently being silently colluded in by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, as the man most in a position to actually do something to actually help the poor people of Zimbabwe. Also to a greater or lesser extent by most of the other African states.
Things do not look good for the people of Zimbabwe.
Clearly its ruler Robert Mugabe and his cronies have no intention of giving up power. They have used the police to prevent opposition legal representatives entering court to apply for an order forcing the release of presidential election results. They went so far as threatening to shoot them if they went into court.
Zimbabwe is effectively close to being a police dictatorship, masquerading as a supposed democracy, where the results can be faked, as it’s ruler wishes. He seems to be taking a leaf out of the EU's book having presumably noted how they handle referendums.
Something went wrong this time, maybe Mugabe and his government actually believed their own lies, they misjudged the strength of feeling against them, the people briefly actually got a chance to really express their will and they lost badly. They are now working out how to correct that.
Sadly all this is apparently being silently colluded in by South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, as the man most in a position to actually do something to actually help the poor people of Zimbabwe. Also to a greater or lesser extent by most of the other African states.
Things do not look good for the people of Zimbabwe.
Friday, 4 April 2008
Flushing duals for Africa
I was listening to the radio the other day. Radio 2, Steve Wright. There was a discussion about duel flush WCs. Between Steve and a female who seemed to hold stronger opinions. I missed who she was.
Both seemed pretty positive about the idea of the dual flush WC on the grounds that it saves water - and indeed what’s not to like?
They then got onto the subject of the possibility of using ‘grey’ water, or rainwater for this purpose.
It certainly would save on drinking water, if the technology were there at a reasonable price – and I am not talking about a rustic bucket by the WC sort of thing here.
Where it all went wrong for me was when the female remarked that it was (and I am paraphrasing here) almost morally wrong to waste good drinking water flushing toilets in the UK when there were children in other parts of the world dying desperate for clean drinking water.
Why do people say stuff like that?
The implication clearly being that we, as wasteful westerners, were somehow hogging the drinking water for ourselves. Now I apologise to her if I misinterpreted her comment, but that’s what it sounded like to me. A logical fallacy a Non-Sequitur.
I thought Doh! “Eat it all up there are starving children in - Wherever…”
I immediately had a vision of how we might measure all the drinking water saved with dual flush WCs, and put it into tankers to freight it to somewhere like Africa. I suppose we would have to build giant ships along the lines of the old sailing (low carbon footprint) tea clippers largely constructed out of wood (for sustainability) to do it. With modern technology you wouldn’t need a huge crew or to climb masts, electric winches and computer technology, powered by solar panels and wind turbines (sustainable energy) could handle it.
No, Sorry – Yes it makes good sense to only use what water we actually need to. To be efficient with it’s use - But our water usage does not deprive anyone elsewhere. Drinking water availability is down to things like climate, geology, technology, political stability and good government.
Both seemed pretty positive about the idea of the dual flush WC on the grounds that it saves water - and indeed what’s not to like?
They then got onto the subject of the possibility of using ‘grey’ water, or rainwater for this purpose.
It certainly would save on drinking water, if the technology were there at a reasonable price – and I am not talking about a rustic bucket by the WC sort of thing here.
Where it all went wrong for me was when the female remarked that it was (and I am paraphrasing here) almost morally wrong to waste good drinking water flushing toilets in the UK when there were children in other parts of the world dying desperate for clean drinking water.
Why do people say stuff like that?
The implication clearly being that we, as wasteful westerners, were somehow hogging the drinking water for ourselves. Now I apologise to her if I misinterpreted her comment, but that’s what it sounded like to me. A logical fallacy a Non-Sequitur.
I thought Doh! “Eat it all up there are starving children in - Wherever…”
I immediately had a vision of how we might measure all the drinking water saved with dual flush WCs, and put it into tankers to freight it to somewhere like Africa. I suppose we would have to build giant ships along the lines of the old sailing (low carbon footprint) tea clippers largely constructed out of wood (for sustainability) to do it. With modern technology you wouldn’t need a huge crew or to climb masts, electric winches and computer technology, powered by solar panels and wind turbines (sustainable energy) could handle it.
No, Sorry – Yes it makes good sense to only use what water we actually need to. To be efficient with it’s use - But our water usage does not deprive anyone elsewhere. Drinking water availability is down to things like climate, geology, technology, political stability and good government.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ Don't interfere with something that ain't bothering you none”Cowboy Proverb
“ There's always been some moron - who usually went by the name of 'producer' - who would have to justify his existence, and interfere.”Frank Tashlin
Royal Mint monkey with UK coinage
The Royal mint has proudly announced a complete re design of Britain’s coins. To which the immediate response is why?
It is the first change in coinage since decimalisation was imposed on the UK in 1968 and will no doubt be accompanied by similar confusion in the elderly.
Clearly this will be more expensive than simply leaving the coinage as it is and appears to bring no benefit whatsoever. Business as usual for the British State under New-Labour then.
The Royal Mint’s chief executive Andrew Stafford, came up with the pathetically inadequate excuse (I bet he’ll get an unreasonably huge productivity bonus at the end of the year too) that:
"We had to make sure that the coin design was true to the heritage of British coins and gave fresh inspiration and modernity to something that has been in existence for 40 years."
Doh! No - You didn’t: “Fresh inspiration”? “Modernity”? I am not usually drawn to using such language in ‘print’ but... What absolute Bollocks!
As far as I know there was no universal clamour to change the existing coinage. It works perfectly well as currency, we all recognise it. How about changing all the road signs while you are at it, or switching to use a different alphabet while you are at it.
Apparently they had a competition (a pretty quiet one by the looks of it) and someone came up with re cycling the idea they used to use with card collections like the ‘Man from Uncle’ and ‘Batman’ ones of yore, part of a picture on one side that you need the complete collection to assemble.
Apparently the winning design was inspired by the thought of drunks in pubs trying to assemble the image.
So presumably Stafford feels that the heritage of the British State is fractured , maybe he is not so wrong there.
How about Britannia? That is certainly true to the heritage of British coinage, maybe with a raised hemline and a kick ass attitude a-la girl power?
Or better still - how about not wasting taxpayers money on an utterly pointless exercise? How about, just for once, not 'fixing' something that isn’t broken.
It is the first change in coinage since decimalisation was imposed on the UK in 1968 and will no doubt be accompanied by similar confusion in the elderly.
Clearly this will be more expensive than simply leaving the coinage as it is and appears to bring no benefit whatsoever. Business as usual for the British State under New-Labour then.
The Royal Mint’s chief executive Andrew Stafford, came up with the pathetically inadequate excuse (I bet he’ll get an unreasonably huge productivity bonus at the end of the year too) that:
"We had to make sure that the coin design was true to the heritage of British coins and gave fresh inspiration and modernity to something that has been in existence for 40 years."
Doh! No - You didn’t: “Fresh inspiration”? “Modernity”? I am not usually drawn to using such language in ‘print’ but... What absolute Bollocks!
As far as I know there was no universal clamour to change the existing coinage. It works perfectly well as currency, we all recognise it. How about changing all the road signs while you are at it, or switching to use a different alphabet while you are at it.
Apparently they had a competition (a pretty quiet one by the looks of it) and someone came up with re cycling the idea they used to use with card collections like the ‘Man from Uncle’ and ‘Batman’ ones of yore, part of a picture on one side that you need the complete collection to assemble.
Apparently the winning design was inspired by the thought of drunks in pubs trying to assemble the image.
So presumably Stafford feels that the heritage of the British State is fractured , maybe he is not so wrong there.
How about Britannia? That is certainly true to the heritage of British coinage, maybe with a raised hemline and a kick ass attitude a-la girl power?
Or better still - how about not wasting taxpayers money on an utterly pointless exercise? How about, just for once, not 'fixing' something that isn’t broken.
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Quote of the day
“ Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.”Xenophon (431BC-350BC)
“ Accuracy of statement is one of the first elements of truth; inaccuracy is a near kin to falsehood”Tryon Edwards
Report claims home birthers at greater risk if transferred to hospital
Sometimes one wonders at what otherwise presumably professional people do with statistics.
Researchers writing in the journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) examined all home births over a decade.
They apparently feel the study indicates there could be ‘serious risks’ for the baby when mothers who chose a home birth are transferred to hospital.
The implication being that home birth is the problem aspect.
The problem is the data is self selecting. They are examining births that have to be transferred to hospital because they have got into trouble serious enough to require it. Also they are not really comparing like for like.
As it stands the particular conclusion mentioned above can really amount to little more than a pointer to a possible direction for further research. Something as easily arrived at by educated logic. It is largely useless - and it needn’t have been, if those conducting it had planned more carefully and harvested the right data. One fears to some extent it is time and money not used to the best advantage it could have been.
Only around 15% of home birthers actually have problems that require they transfer to hospital, for second time mothers the risk is lower.
A valid comparison would have been to look at how women who elected to give birth in hospital, with no contra indications prior to giving birth, fared against women who elected to give birth at home with, no prior contra indications, fared.
One might expect to see that the possible wait and journey to hospital might disadvantage home birthers who got into trouble, compared to Hospital birthers who similarly got into trouble - but it is possible this could be offset by other factors, such as the risk posed by antibiotic resistant infections and other infections present in hospitals, or possible closer individual attention during the initial stages.
Whilst the actual report is more balanced, the BBC headline is dubious in that it baldly states “Home birth to ward increases risk”. It is actually misleading as this is by no means proven, or evident, even from the report. An accurate headline might have prefaced it with “Report claims”.
Researchers writing in the journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) examined all home births over a decade.
They apparently feel the study indicates there could be ‘serious risks’ for the baby when mothers who chose a home birth are transferred to hospital.
The implication being that home birth is the problem aspect.
The problem is the data is self selecting. They are examining births that have to be transferred to hospital because they have got into trouble serious enough to require it. Also they are not really comparing like for like.
As it stands the particular conclusion mentioned above can really amount to little more than a pointer to a possible direction for further research. Something as easily arrived at by educated logic. It is largely useless - and it needn’t have been, if those conducting it had planned more carefully and harvested the right data. One fears to some extent it is time and money not used to the best advantage it could have been.
Only around 15% of home birthers actually have problems that require they transfer to hospital, for second time mothers the risk is lower.
A valid comparison would have been to look at how women who elected to give birth in hospital, with no contra indications prior to giving birth, fared against women who elected to give birth at home with, no prior contra indications, fared.
One might expect to see that the possible wait and journey to hospital might disadvantage home birthers who got into trouble, compared to Hospital birthers who similarly got into trouble - but it is possible this could be offset by other factors, such as the risk posed by antibiotic resistant infections and other infections present in hospitals, or possible closer individual attention during the initial stages.
Whilst the actual report is more balanced, the BBC headline is dubious in that it baldly states “Home birth to ward increases risk”. It is actually misleading as this is by no means proven, or evident, even from the report. An accurate headline might have prefaced it with “Report claims”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
