tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62891308087977815402024-03-08T18:10:24.971+00:00Is there any tea on this spaceship?Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-61814391426354172082011-09-23T09:44:00.002+01:002011-09-23T12:07:45.576+01:00Amendment to the speed limitHave elementary particles actually been observed <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos">travelling faster than ligh</a>t? This is impossible, right. Nothing's established as yet, but if true, it would be a remarkable discovery, that I'm sure is prompting loads of fanciful explanations.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Could a more prosaic explanation just be that the speed-of-light limit still holds, but we just got the speed wrong? The fundamental limit is to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light">speed of light in a vacuum</a>. This has been measured extremely accurately.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But, we know <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy">space is not a vacuum</a>. Maybe we've been actually measuring the <i>speed of light in a vacuum energy field</i> instead, and the neutrinos measure by CERN are actually travelling closer to the true "speed of light in a vacuum".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course, there are other tests of the value of "c", such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence">equivalence of mass and energy</a>, but there appears to be <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#4">some wriggle room in the experimental tests of this.</a><br />
<br />
<b>PS:</b> This is almost definitely complete nonsense, probably for various reasons, but for a start the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#Neutrino_emissions">neutrino measurements for SN1987A</a> would have to be bogus.</div>
Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-75590074866320766512011-07-17T18:36:00.002+01:002011-07-18T09:47:30.357+01:00"Sorry" for decades of manipulation, corruption and depravitySo, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14170756">Mr Murdoch says sorry</a>. Well that's alright then, lets just forget it all shall we?<br />
<br />
That's what some Murdoch apologists heard on a BBC Radio 5 Live phone in on Friday night (15th July 2011) were saying. Personally, although I have never been a fan of Mr Murdoch or subscribed to any of his various organs (e.g. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20021022143747/http://www.met.ed.ac.uk/~mwm/articulated/index.html">Articulated Morrey 11 Sept 2000</a>), I am still amazed at the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world">depths of depravity</a> they were capable of sinking to. <br />
<br />
If those at the top of the organisation knew about this, then the book should be thrown at them. If they didn't, then they were negligent, and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8633548/Phone-hacking-scandal-News-International-executives-face-threat-of-police-inquiry.html">according to the "Ripa" act</a> the book should still be thrown at them. What are the chances...?Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-2072265077160380982010-06-16T09:17:00.001+01:002010-06-16T10:54:40.093+01:00New New-LabourI have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed the Labour leadership husting on Newsnight last night. I'm reminded again what a strong team Labour has, at least compared the retreads and odd-balls the Conservatives cobbled into a cabinet. <br />
<br />
What a shame that Labour allowed the the election to focus so much on the leader, leaving all this talent hiding in the background. There are several other credible candidates who are not even in the race, including Alan Johnson, Ivette Cooper, Hilary Benn, and the only-slightly-tainted Peter Hain.<br />
<br />
The Labour leadership is still an open race, but I think David Milliband consolidated his position as favourite a little. He showed an astute political brain, especially in taking the opportunity to attack the Conservatives. His point about the "game" being played by the ConDems, to blame big government for the state of UK finances, must have rung home with an audience of potential Labour voters. We shouldn't forget, it was the banks what done it.<br />
<br />
Of the others, Ed Balls, despite his reputation, seemed quite human. Andy Burnham, who I like, is going to have to push himself forward a bit more if he's going to have a chance, and continuing to back the decision on Iraq is not going to win him many favours. <br />
<br />
Ed Milliband seems the most sincere of the lot, but I don't think he's going to beat his brother. Diane Abbot is acquitting herself well, deserves to get her say, and a job if Labour get back into power. She is the only one with sense/honesty to say we should scrap Trident.Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-68164127387696002602010-05-07T15:03:00.006+01:002010-05-07T17:14:58.211+01:00Don't do it Nick, you'll look stupid and get hurtObserving the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667938.stm">attempted seduction of Mr Clegg by Mr Cameron</a>. <br />
<br />
As <a href="http://teaonthisspaceship.blogspot.com/2010/05/i-am-voting-labour-for-constitutional.html">predicted</a>, Cameron is paying lip service to the idea of electoral reform, to try and make it possible for the Lib-Dems to go into coalition with him without looking stupid. Don't do it Nick, you'll look stupid, and get hurt.<br />
<br />
If this were Germany, not the UK, we would be talking about a centre-left coalition of Labour, Lib-Dem, SDLP, Green, and Alliance. Why can't this be Germany?<br />
<br />
Other parties, particularly the Scottish Nationalists (1,.8% of the vote, 0.9% of the seats, so far) also have a common interest in electoral reform, and no love of the Tories. So, a Queen's Speech to adopt Labour's existing budget, implement electoral reform, and then have another election, would seem to be the answer.Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-19955286421601021502010-05-06T16:02:00.002+01:002010-05-06T17:36:32.134+01:00I am voting Labour for constitutional reform: here's whyBen Goldacre is <a href="http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/i-am-voting-lib-dem-for-voting-reform-heres-h">voting Lib-Dem for constitutional reform</a>. Respect for his principled position, but I fear if others follow his lead, it is an approach doomed to failure.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
<ol><li>If the Tories get an overall majority, we will not get constitutional reform. Therefore those in favour must vote tactically against the Tories, including voting Labour in a Conservative-Labour marginal.</li>
<li>If there is no overall majority, but the Tories are the largest party by a significant margin, the Lib-Dems will feel obliged to consider coalition with them first. The Tories will gain their cooperation by playing lip service to voting reform, e.g. by agreeing to a referendum, but in practice strongly oppose it.</li>
</ol><div>The second point is the reason why I am voting Labour in a Lab-Lib marginal. Labour and the Lib-Dems in coalition would deliver substantive constitutional reform.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Labour already have a good track record of delivering constitutional reform:</div><div><ul><li>Adoption of the European Convention of Human Rights</li>
<li>Partial reform of the House of Lords</li>
<li>Partial devolution of the UK</li>
<li>Proportional representation in elections for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland governments</li>
<li>Freedom of Information Act </li>
</ul></div><div>If Labour are wiped out in this election we will not get constitutional reform.</div>Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-85052018179205408012009-12-08T17:55:00.007+00:002010-02-23T13:35:07.215+00:00Help! We've lagged our planet and can't turn the heating downAs the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jJ3RI164MEyRvQc0IpbGzzZDIccw">Copenhagen climate conference</a> struggles gallantly towards the unavoidable shabby compromise, its worth pausing for a note of thanks to all those open-minded, definitely-not-biased, definitely-not-paid, professional global warming sceptics, who have managed to scupper every other previous initiative in this area over the last twenty years. <br />
<br />
If you happen to be one of those sceptics, thank-you, from the bottom of my heart, for pissing the future of human civilisation, including that of my children, up the wall, in the interests of...well we know who, don't we. However, you are not totally alone. Even some professional meteorologists of my acquaintaince, have always doubted the science of climate change, despite the plain facts and simple physics being<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6729732/Copenhagen-climate-summit-gloomy-Swede-Svante-Arrhenius-saw-chill-wind-of-change.html"> long known</a>, and almost impossible to argue with.<br />
<br />
Here then, in belated and pointless summary are what I see as the basic, undisputable facts:<br />
<ul><li>There are gases in our atmosphere that effectively insulate the warm Earth from cold space, by inhibiting the radiation of heat. It is an easily measurable property of these gases.<br />
</li>
<li>"Modern" human civilisation generates large amounts of these gases.</li>
<li>The proportion of these gases in our atmosphere has been increasing since records began.</li>
<li>The gases take a long time to go away again.</li>
</ul>So, we've been lagging the attic, but we can't turn down the heating down - the sun shines on. These basic facts lead to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6729732/Copenhagen-climate-summit-gloomy-Swede-Svante-Arrhenius-saw-chill-wind-of-change.html">predictions up to a century ago, that our climate would get warmer</a>. There is now very strong <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm">physical evidence that our emissions are causing our planet to warm</a>.<br />
<div><ul></ul>You can argue about the details, quality of the climate models, or whatever, but the basic correlation between what the basic physics predicts, and what actually appears to be happening, is surely strong enough to prompt us into major action. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, we may be 20 years too late to do anything, but that doesn't mean its not worth trying. Fiddling at the margins isn't going to cut it though, and neither is waiting to 2050!<br />
<br />
I say, <a href="http://teaonthisspaceship.blogspot.com/2009/09/terraforming-terra.html">lets call in the extra-terrestrials</a>.</div>Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-7952805568056182942009-12-08T17:32:00.006+00:002010-04-08T16:57:19.395+01:00Trident: More than three reasons why we don't need itI would urge anyone in the UK reading this to sign the <a href="http://www.rethinktrident.org.uk/">Rethink Trident petition</a>.<br />
<br />
There is a comment box on the petition where you enter your thoughts on why renewing or replacing Britain's independent nuclear detterent (a.k.a. weapon of mass destruction) is a bad idea. These are mine:<br />
<ul><li>It was designed for a war that ended 20 year ago.<br />
</li>
<li>Human civilisation would be at an end if we ever had to use it.</li>
<li>It helps justify Iran's, North Korea's and who-knows-who's own WMD programmes.</li>
<li>If we didn't already have one, we wouldn't remotely consider getting one.</li>
<li>Too many of our smartest brains, strongest leaders and most skillful sailors are wasted working on it.</li>
<li>We can't afford it any more.</li>
<li>The world can't afford it any more.</li>
</ul>Decommission it now, and don't replace it.Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-3652629618957894982009-09-28T13:08:00.011+01:002010-05-06T17:36:03.390+01:00Terraforming TerraSo, we're probably going to get <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/28/met-office-study-global-warming">a 4 degree rise by 2060</a>? Far from going out and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars">terraforming</a> other parts of our solar system, looks like we've got a little problem to deal with at home first.<br />
<br />
However, what would happen if an interstellar mission, from the planet, Kula, looking for Kulaforming opportunities, happens across our small, slightly-used, blue-green planet? On the bridge of the starship "Nordic Social Model" (this is the nearest meaningful translation), the science officer speaks up.<br />
<br />
"Captain, this planet could provide the perfect environment for sub-galactic living, if it wasn't for one of the native species running amock, and ruining the climatic equilibrium."<br />
<br />
The crew might discuss solutions ranging from polite suggestions to the inhabitants, to bringing in the team from Planetary Rentokill, but lets just imagine what would happen if they just decided to land their tremendously-powerful spaceship, and sort things out.<br />
<br />
In its first week the new planetary goverment would probably:<br />
<ul><li>Ban any chopping down of trees, without written permission from the Kulan forestry agency, (100 light years away), in triplicate<br />
</li>
<li>Give people 30 days to decide where they hell they want to be, and then ban flying, on pain of vapourisation<br />
</li>
<li>Fund walking, fanning and knitting lessons for North Americans</li>
<li>Allow the removal of oil/coal/gas from the ground, only with a tree-planting receipt for each barrel/ton/large bag-full</li>
<li>Circulate the simplified designs for the fusion reactor their species developed several thousand years ago.<br />
</li>
<li>Start covering the Sahara with aluminium foil (or something like that...)</li>
</ul>Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-62996661960475143862009-09-09T11:22:00.016+01:002009-09-09T12:07:03.813+01:00An advertising ban, why not? We won't tell Trevor.Yeterday's <a href="http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/alcohol/undertheinfluence.jsp">proposal by the British Medical Association to ban alcohol advertising</a> is a logical next step from the existing ban on tobacco advertising in the UK. The logical next step after that is to ban advertising all together.<div><br /></div><div>No, think about it. Don't we all hate advertising, possibly except for those who happen to work in that industry? The advertising industry itself is totally geared towards persuading us to buy, do and use stuff we don't really need, probably the greatest environmental crime of all.</div><div><br /></div><div>The cash from advertising artificially sustains various media channels we could happily do with out - free sheets, Sunday supplements, ITV. When's the last time anything really good was shown on ITV? The cash from sponsorship helps inflate the ridiculously huge fees paid to those who happen to be good at knocking a ball around.</div><div><br /></div><div>Without the crutch of advertising revenue, our media would have to pass on the full costs of production in cover prices or subscription fees; and yes, some might fall by the wayside. Do I hear a cry of anguish from the British public...? Urrr, no! Even the Murdoch group can see <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/sep/04/newspaper-paid-content-growth">the writing on the wall</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>It wouldn't be hard to do, it would be simplicity itself. Simply copy the existing tobacco legislation, replace any phrase specifying tobacco products with the word "anything", and then watch it sail through the Houses of Parliament.</div><div><br /></div><div>If we don't do this, you just know we are going to end-up enacting separate bans on advertising:</div><div><ul><li>other things that are bad to put in your body</li><li>things that are bad for the environment, like driving and flying</li><li>things that are good for terrorists, like flying</li></ul></div><div>It could all happen tomorrow, or next year at least; although in deference to one our nations great figures, perhaps we should wait until <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_McDonald">Sir Trevor McDonald</a> announces his complete retirement. I'll drink to that.</div>Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-27375819631376473652009-08-14T21:38:00.014+01:002009-09-02T12:00:02.545+01:00British cycling misses a trick or threeApparently British cycling, and "British Cycling", are dismayed at the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/13/british-cycling-london-olympic-games-2012">IOC's refusal to add more cycling events at London 2012</a> . Obviously, the potential for expanding the only Olympic discipline us Brits have any consistent ability in (cycling round and round a banked track, i.e. going nowhere), should be explored to the full.<br /><br />However, I can't help feeling we've missed a trick or three. British Cycling should take a leaf out of the swimmers' book, where outmoded and inefficient methods of progress are awarded their own separate events. Butterfly across the channel anyone?<br /><div><br />So, if Britain proposed adding a <i>penny-farthing pursuit</i>, a <i>boneshaker sprint</i>, and a <i>unicycle keirin</i>, who could possibly argue?</div><div><br />Furthermore, although, amazingly, Britain is not the only country where two people actually daft enough to try <a href="http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2782/tandem2cn.jpg">riding the one bicycle at the same time</a>, tandem-cycling does open up a whole swathe of possibilities. For example, a team pursuit for just two bikes; or eight participants with four hacksaws.<br /><br />Take it one step further, and you could make up a whole set of events for which <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4705/bike.gif">Britain is guaranteed to have the only entry</a>.</div>Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6289130808797781540.post-15554951176352074222008-10-10T12:11:00.002+01:002008-10-10T21:43:58.253+01:00Why do we pay tax on the interest we earn?A question that has been asked many times I'm sure, but as we make the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/09/economy.alistairdarling">transition to a different financial paradigm</a>, I'm asking it again.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Problem:</span> We (in the UK at least) have been borrowing (and the banks have been lending us) too much money. The banks don't bring-in enough money in savings to cover this borrowing, and now they can't borrow it from each other either, the whole economy is coming unstuck.<br /><br />Might be a good time to encourage people to save more, methinks, and what better way than to stop punishing people by taxing them on interest earned on their already-taxed income. At the end of the day, since <a href="http://www.mortgages.co.uk/mortgage-information/tax-relief.html">Mortgate Interest Tax Relief </a>was abolished, we never get any tax back on the interest we have to pay on our mortgages etc, so perhaps restoring some balance to the taxation system is in order. Lets extend the "cash ISA" to its logical conclusion - tax-free personal savings.<br /><br />Although there are many folk who like to earn free money from slick investments, most of us would be happy to keep whatever savings we have in a safe place, where they are reasonably well protected from inflation. Why, especially now, should government inhibit this by squeezing taxation income out if?<br /><br />But...if not that...then at least help people offset one set of interest (earned) against another (paid). Encouraging transparent and flexible mortgage-accounts, like <a href="http://www.virginone.com/">Virgin's One account</a>, might be one way to do this, though preferably without having to pay an interest-rate premium to get it.Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08583413430021326355noreply@blogger.com0