This morning, in the 10 minutes I was listening to the news on my way to work yesterday it managed to annoy me.
There was an article on a new study which reportedly showed that a mother who goes to work when their children are very young doesn't do any damage to them.
Now, this isn't what inspired the anger. They had a representative from some organisation whose name escapes me. Dedicated to helping mothers to stay at home with their children.
What sparked off my rage was their first comment on "How in the animal kingdom animals looked after their young...".
I wanted to take her and turn her in a circle, pointing to the world around her.
The rate of infant/maternal mortality. Childhood diseases now rendered so rare they make the national news on occasion.
Yes, in the animal kingdom mothers have to hunt for their children. Pull down and slaughter prey that fights back or find other food, edible foliage and the like.
She has to go to tescos.
THERE IS NO COMPARISON!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
New toys...
We all like new toys - and telling the world we have them.
And I've got a new toy!
I'm fairly sure I've ranted about my netbook on here once or twice - I love the thing to bits, after all. But, well, it's not perfect.
And the one thing that bugs me is battery life. I can use it for between 1-2 hours. An hour playing warcraft or two hours with notepad, tea and some serious thinking.
(I know,doesn't happen often lately)
But if you use it for half an hour, while eating lunch at work...maybe use it later in the kitchen, listening to the radio while you cook. That leaves you at 50% or less.
Then you've got to start making choices - because deep discharging (aka, running till flat) is very bad for lithium rechargeable batteries.
So do you use it for another half an hour, push it to 25%? But what if you need it in a hurry for something else afterwards... shouldn't you be recharging it?
However, this problem is now solved.
For I've gone and spent money (painful though it was) for a new battery. It's not the same size, nor twice or thrice as big. It's 3.4 times as big. So a naive assessment says it should last 3.4 hours to 6.8. This sounds like an improvement!
But no, better yet - because it's new and not started to degrade it hasn't suffered the fate of the old one yet. The old one could store only 80% of a full charge due to age.
So that's really 4.25-8.5 hours. Getting better...
And still further - because it has more cells (9 vs 3) the drain on each cell is reduced by a third. So there is less energy lost at that stage as well. I can't quantify this (to do so would require a really sensitive thermometer and a sealed, controlled environment) - but it's one more reason the new battery is just...
...well...
...shiny....
And I've got a new toy!
I'm fairly sure I've ranted about my netbook on here once or twice - I love the thing to bits, after all. But, well, it's not perfect.
And the one thing that bugs me is battery life. I can use it for between 1-2 hours. An hour playing warcraft or two hours with notepad, tea and some serious thinking.
(I know,doesn't happen often lately)
But if you use it for half an hour, while eating lunch at work...maybe use it later in the kitchen, listening to the radio while you cook. That leaves you at 50% or less.
Then you've got to start making choices - because deep discharging (aka, running till flat) is very bad for lithium rechargeable batteries.
So do you use it for another half an hour, push it to 25%? But what if you need it in a hurry for something else afterwards... shouldn't you be recharging it?
However, this problem is now solved.
For I've gone and spent money (painful though it was) for a new battery. It's not the same size, nor twice or thrice as big. It's 3.4 times as big. So a naive assessment says it should last 3.4 hours to 6.8. This sounds like an improvement!
But no, better yet - because it's new and not started to degrade it hasn't suffered the fate of the old one yet. The old one could store only 80% of a full charge due to age.
So that's really 4.25-8.5 hours. Getting better...
And still further - because it has more cells (9 vs 3) the drain on each cell is reduced by a third. So there is less energy lost at that stage as well. I can't quantify this (to do so would require a really sensitive thermometer and a sealed, controlled environment) - but it's one more reason the new battery is just...
...well...
...shiny....
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Oh dear...
Morning all.
I was going to rip apart an article on pornography today. Mostly because I was reading the website and thought I'd fallen into the twilight zone.
However, I'm not.
Because I never want to talk about something on here that I wouldn't explain to a child.
So if you want a look, go here - but be warned, the author may not have a good relationship with reality. I certainly couldn't relate to any part...
I was going to rip apart an article on pornography today. Mostly because I was reading the website and thought I'd fallen into the twilight zone.
However, I'm not.
Because I never want to talk about something on here that I wouldn't explain to a child.
So if you want a look, go here - but be warned, the author may not have a good relationship with reality. I certainly couldn't relate to any part...
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Radiation!
Grrrr.
I often find myself telling the radio that it's wrong. And today was a case in point.
There was a "not-in-my-back-yard" environmentalist complaining about plans to store nuclear waste. You see, he's wrong. badly wrong. We shouldn't be trying to get rid of it. We should be getting more.
There are two ways to deal with very highly radioactive waste - we're talking fuel rods and the like. The easy one is store it. You find somewhere quiet and isolated (say, Scotland? In a Welsh mountain?) and store it for the next age or two. This does work, yes. You build a big enough facility and tell countries who want to get rid of the stuff "Pay us xxx, deliver it safely to [point] and we'll take it off your hands".
Charge enough and you cover costs - so a good approach to start with. It's stored in a high tech country away from nasty terrorists and freedom fighters and the like. (And no, I don't count the Scottish as freedom fighters. Other words spring to mind.)
But the other one is better - that is, after having acquired as much of the worlds really radioactive waste as we can, we change the plan.
We build a new reactor and use the damned stuff as fuel. It's so dangerous and radioactive BECAUSE IT CONTAINS ENERGY. You set up an environment where the neutrons it emits are recaptured by other material - this causes more fission and more and more. This generates more radiation for a short time - along with shed loads of heat.
End product - low carbon energy and your high level waste is suddenly not so dangerous.
Get rid of it? Buy it!
I often find myself telling the radio that it's wrong. And today was a case in point.
There was a "not-in-my-back-yard" environmentalist complaining about plans to store nuclear waste. You see, he's wrong. badly wrong. We shouldn't be trying to get rid of it. We should be getting more.
There are two ways to deal with very highly radioactive waste - we're talking fuel rods and the like. The easy one is store it. You find somewhere quiet and isolated (say, Scotland? In a Welsh mountain?) and store it for the next age or two. This does work, yes. You build a big enough facility and tell countries who want to get rid of the stuff "Pay us xxx, deliver it safely to [point] and we'll take it off your hands".
Charge enough and you cover costs - so a good approach to start with. It's stored in a high tech country away from nasty terrorists and freedom fighters and the like. (And no, I don't count the Scottish as freedom fighters. Other words spring to mind.)
But the other one is better - that is, after having acquired as much of the worlds really radioactive waste as we can, we change the plan.
We build a new reactor and use the damned stuff as fuel. It's so dangerous and radioactive BECAUSE IT CONTAINS ENERGY. You set up an environment where the neutrons it emits are recaptured by other material - this causes more fission and more and more. This generates more radiation for a short time - along with shed loads of heat.
End product - low carbon energy and your high level waste is suddenly not so dangerous.
Get rid of it? Buy it!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Quote of the day
"Evil. Tastes like nutella"
(Context: Weight Watchers points. Not what you were thinking of.
(Context: Weight Watchers points. Not what you were thinking of.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Morning all
Blogging has been light of late, but for the moment...
What did you think of the budget yesterday.
Did you enjoy the tax rises?
Yep, that's right. Tax rises for every single full time working person in the UK. And most of the part timers as well.
You see, it goes like this. Every year we have inflation, the gradual process of rising prices. Every year the government raises the amount you can earn before they tax you by a similar amount.
Except for labour. Who didn't increase it at all.
Tax by stealth...
What did you think of the budget yesterday.
Did you enjoy the tax rises?
Yep, that's right. Tax rises for every single full time working person in the UK. And most of the part timers as well.
You see, it goes like this. Every year we have inflation, the gradual process of rising prices. Every year the government raises the amount you can earn before they tax you by a similar amount.
Except for labour. Who didn't increase it at all.
Tax by stealth...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Unexpected consequences
As you've probably worked out by now, I'm a believer in Equality. Which doesn't seem hugely popular out there in the real world.
Anyway, read this .
Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average women will in her lifetime have 2.5 children. That she's probably going to have them between the ages of 20 and 40.
Yes, I know these numbers are both flawed - I'm picking them to keep things simple.
2.5 children * 20 weeks = 50 weeks... essentially a year. We assumed a time frame of 20 years - so for 1 in 20 years they are a cost, not an asset.
That is, they are 5% less effective over that time.
This "women's rights committee" will have done more to undermine equality and fairness with this proposed law then...then... I can't think of a good enough example.
People don't usually shoot themselves in the foot with anti-tank weapons.
Anyway, read this .
A massive extension of maternity leave across Europe was last night voted for by the Womens’ Rights Committee of the European Parliament to make it compulsory for employers to pay mothers for a minimum of 20 weeks on full pay.
Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that the average women will in her lifetime have 2.5 children. That she's probably going to have them between the ages of 20 and 40.
Yes, I know these numbers are both flawed - I'm picking them to keep things simple.
2.5 children * 20 weeks = 50 weeks... essentially a year. We assumed a time frame of 20 years - so for 1 in 20 years they are a cost, not an asset.
That is, they are 5% less effective over that time.
This "women's rights committee" will have done more to undermine equality and fairness with this proposed law then...then... I can't think of a good enough example.
People don't usually shoot themselves in the foot with anti-tank weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)