Soop Dogg

Isn't that because the front one has a wastegate?

WTF?? Knife up a bunch of youths? For a laugh?? You're as bad as the press! I doubt she'd see any of this incident as a laugh. and which celeb are you referring to that has "knifed up a bunch of youths"? That BBC piece is so poorly written it's verging on laughable. A kitchen knife is a 'Weapon of Offence', not an 'Offensive Weapon'. And of course you can protect yourself in your house. To say that you can't is ludicrous. She'll probably have been told that if she had lifted the knife with malice of forethought, then she may have been in trouble. If someone had her by the throat and she grabbed it as it was the nearest thing and used it, then she'd be ok, but to lift it and go after someone would be a no-no. But you can protect yourself in your own home - you just have to be very careful how you do it.

This thread? http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?t=200352&highlight=goals **Edit - beaten to it.**

In Russia, loads of people use neat, 100 proof vodka in their washer bottles as it's cheaper than screenwash and doesn't freeze until about -40°C Can't see any of us doing that, though!

Can't help with the car bit, but is this chick any good? CLICK for Chick

Haven't they already dropped Pontiac & Saturn? (I can understand them getting rid of Saturn, but you'd have thought they'd try a little harder to save the Pontiac name)

If the lines weren't visible properly on the road you should have refused the fixed penalty (did you know you can do this? You should be given the option of FP or report for summons.) Might have been a bit of hassle, but with pics to prove the lines were not correctly displayed then you may have had a reasonable chance of getting away with it.

Just what I thought when I watched it. The boot release is a tiny little button - the bonnet release is a much bigger lever in a completely different place. Gutted it just HAD to be a yellow Corvette! Doh.

Thanks Darren. This is for my XP machine upstairs. I use Norton 360 for the Vista and Win7 machines, so I'll just see how it goes on my reasonably 'ancient' machine. See you tomorrow!

Funny - I was just looking at this thread as I'm in the process of installing AVG9 myself. I'll take a look for the stuff re. the LinkScanner. Any links you can point me at, Digsy?

The trouble is that they excluded (up until Jan 2009) ANY evidence from under 16's. e.g. a 15yr old says 'I was robbed - that's why my iPod's gone and I have a knife wound in my face' - disregarded, not recorded as valid data for the survey. There was no facility for someone or some authority to 'vouch' for any such evidence. However, as I've also said, from Jan 2009 they have decided that it is now worthy of record. (This was campaigned for by organisations such as the Childrens Society for some time) The main trouble I see with Police statistics over recent years is how the Home Office have repeatedly changed the rules on what is reportable. What was ABH back in the early 90's has now been pushed down to Common Assault and is no longer reportable. Down go the figures! Basically it excludes anything at all that is Now, call me old fashioned, but if I was carrying out a Crime Survey, I'd think about speaking to the occasional victim of crime.

Didn't the British Crime Survey exclude evidence given by under 16's prior to this year? Isn't this considered to be one of the highest 'growth' sections of society becoming victims of crime in recent years? Even today it excludes crime committed against children under 10 - they just aren't seen as victims by the survey. It also excludes crimes where the victim is not a person in the resident household population. So crimes against for example public property, companies & private sector organisations, tourists, foreign students/workers, residents of institutions and homeless people are not counted. Drug offences and (get this!) HOMICIDE are also excluded. If you want to believe Jaqui Smith's BCS figures, then you're welcome to do so, but I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the Govt Blinkers fund myself. Having been a serving Police Officer from the mid 80's ot the mid 90's, I'd say that crime - particularly violent crime committed by under 16's wasn't THAT high up until the time I left the job. Yes, it was common enough, but not the way it is today. Obviously having been in the job for that length of time and still living in the area in which I served, I still have a farily wide circle of friends who are still in the job locally. From what they tell me, it's a whole new ball game when you talk about violent crime committed by 'kids'. It's no longer about giving younger kids a smack round the head and nicking their money for cigarettes - they'll beat a kid half to death, stamp on his head and stab him these days for a bit of cash or a mobile phone/iPod etc. Reading statistics off a sheet of paper is one thing - actually dealing with the results of what these statistics are supposedly representative is quite another. Perhaps if they included all sections of society, and all types of crime (and not just from a selection of postcodes as the BCS does) we'd get a better feel of how all of society is being affected by crime.

From the BBC News site today. CLICK

This is the program I use for converting HD Movies for the PS3. It outputs AVI files nicely, but I haven't had a problem with it taking too long a time to build the files.

I like some of Satie's stuff myself. Gnossienne No. 4 is one of my favourites.

You're right! My 2 favourites would be Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor (Moonlight Sonata) - Beethoven. I used to play this years ago, but I'd make a right hash of it if I tried now! O6txOvK-mAk Rhapsody on a theme of Paganini in A Minor by Sergei Rachmaninov 90MuPqYtV_k

Good shout on Dignity! Haven't heard that for ages. And I'll sail her up the west coast.......

41zDpASSzn8 B3BoGofWClY The last one is ruined by clips of the movie 'Meet the Robinsons', but the song brings back many memories for me. HLT4N5IgP9c

Coincidentally I lost wifi connection on Saturday to my router from my laptop. I'd been using it online in the morning and left it running whilst I went outside and froze my a$$ off for a couple of hours washed the car. When I came back in I couldn't get on the network at all. PS3 and my phone connected just fine. Had a look to see when the last WINUpdate took place and it was at 11:49 Saturday morning. (Whilst I was outside) Checked for driver updates on the Intel website and a new one for my wireless card was issued a week back. I ended up downloading it on my main PC onto a USB stick and installing it that way. Problem solved. Just in case anyone applies the latest Vista (32 bit) update and finds a similar problem.

Don't have time to reply to the rest at the moment, but I'm glad you brought this bit up as it forms part of the work I do. Scientists compete for funding from a number of sources - governments (UK/EU etc), private companies etc. They compete in 'open competition' for a finite amount of funding. Some or all may come from each source - many projects get money from multiple sources, but in all cases, the scientist who is the project leader will spend many weeks and sometimes months (depending on the size and duration of the project) preparing his case for why he should get the funding in his lab/institute and not someone else. If he fails in his bid, then that time is wasted and he'll have to find something else to make a project out of. It's a bit like tendering for a contract. Much work can go into preparing the tender, but if they don't get it they've wasted a lot of effort for nothing. That's why (have to be careful here) it would be very tempting for a scientist to, shall we say, 'embelish' or 'make more relevant' the case for carrying out a particular piece of science.

Aah - that's ok then - as long as there's plenty of people saying the same thing then it must be true. I work among some of the worlds most eminent scientists in an institute that's not far off being within a stones throw of the UEA Climate Research Unit (Literally) There are many scientists who say the same thing about science these days - if you can link your research to climate change, you're far more likely to obtain funding than if you don't. No wonder many scientists won't stand up and discredit the thoeries of MMGW - it's the horse they're riding to enable them to do their work! (And make a living) I have no argument that the earth is warming. What annoys me is how people jump on the GW bandwagon and distort the truth to help hammer their points home. Take Al Gore and his 'Inconvenient Truth' which turned out to contain many claims that were nothing like the 'truth'. Sitting on the couch with Oprah talking about how many Polar Bears are drowning because they swim around trying to find ice and eventually drown. He said this was happening in 'significant numbers' when in fact the only Polar Bears found drowned died in a storm. (There were 4 of them) In fact, their numbers have doubled sonce 1960, so why the panic? Why put them on the 'endangered species' list? How about just stopping hunting them if they're really at risk? Perhaps because they're not. Similar data was being bandied around in the 1970's - but guess what? It was saying back then that man made pollution was blocking out the sun and would lead to another ice-age. Some of these claims came form respectable scientists in respectable agencies & institutes around the world - most noteably would probably be claims issued from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Were they any less correct or creditable than todays scientists? I'm not saying you should 'throw out computer modelling. What I'm saying is that the computer modelling should support science - not the other way around. It's putting the horse before the cart! Can i just also say here that I think it's a good idea to stop chucking bad things into the air we breathe. I just object to being taxed on the back of unproven 'facts' so that the taxes I pay can be used towards something completely different

What annoyed me after the whole University of East Anglia thing was the Prime Minister contacting scientists there asking how they can 'restore confidence' in the whole GW debate. Shouldn't he have been saying 'let's get all this out now and see what REAL, SCIENCE BASED evidence actually exists?' Maybe that's too much like a reasoned debate for this govt. (Let's face it - they'd loose too much money in taxes that are based on MMGW)