All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
trevorjharris: I'm not going to try to debate the in's ans out of climate change here, because:
a) This website has an entirely different topic
b) My physics is barely above O level, for the most part.
However, with your background in physics, I'm sure you would be interested sites like the ones from Tamino Open Mind | Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything (who has an excellent set of links to data sets if you want to crunch the numbers yourself - Open Mind | Science, Politics, Life, the Universe, and Everything climate-data-links/ ), and Eli Rabett's Rabett Rabett Run
Both are working scientists, and have lots of links to others working in the field. And RealClimate is a must - the permanent and guest contributors are working (and publishing) climate scientists, and there is a huge amount of commentary on journal articles, data and other links as well. They have just put up a review of the situation in the Antarctic which is very interesting. RealClimate: So what is really happening in Antarctica? .These, and many other sites, will give you an insight into climate science at a level your academic background warrents.
Unfortunately, the 'ice age' meme is false. The 'possible ice age' stories started being reported in the 1970's, but were based on basically one outlier paper What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? . The science was pretty clear by that time anyway - Lyndon Johnson was briefed in a report in 1965 about it, and mentioned it in a speech to Congress in Feb 1965 http://www.washingtonpost…tml.
As we know, science is reflected in the journals, not the popular press. The number of journal articles attempting to argue against AGM is tiny. And thats why I find the evidence for AGM overwhelming. However, the links above should allow you to look at the data with your own eyes and evaluate it.
| link to this comment |
Jon: You havn't given us a postcode, so we dont know where you are in relation to the transmitter.
However, could be a couple of things. You might have noticed a load of problems from people, whose normal reception has completely gone up the wall. The most likely explaination is the high pressure system over parts of the UK at the moment. If you only started to get the problem in roughly the last week, it might well be that. Since this sort of thing doesn't happen all that often, and like all UK weather, will change, hopefully soon that should be it.
Next - what is your signal strength like on those Mux's? If its 90-100%, then its too high. HD is more likely to get hit by too high a signal strength, so a picture breaking, going entirely, etc, might be that the turner is screaming, not that there is a problem elsewhere. If it is very high, get an attenuator (Toolstation do a variable attenuator with F fittings for 3.79, and fixed ones can be had from Amazon for less than 2 each - which is what I use). See 'too much of a good thing' on this website. BTW - do you have an amplifier? That could be part of the problem.
Could be 4G. But the bulk of people who suggest that dont end up with that as the actual problem - signal strength, dodgy cables are much more likely to be at fault. If you put your postcode into the site, there will be a link to a map of 4G sites, so you can see how close you are.
| link to this comment |
Jon: It does sound like the weather, but your just 16km from the transmitter, and 90% is way high - 'see too much of a good thing'. An attenuator would bring it down enough to avoid the HD channels breaking up. They might have been just at the limit, but not quite getting there, until the high pressure system came along.
| link to this comment |
Paul: Ok - so half the TV mux's are fine, and the other half unwatchable. What is the signal strength on the unwatchable ones. Not the quality - the strength.
The Richer Sounds TV has a different tuner - so it might be less sensitive, hence it doesnt have a problem with signal strength.
| link to this comment |
Paul: The Panasonic and the transmitter are perfectly compatable! I have no idea why some muxs should be fine, and the others rubbish, considering they are both being attenuated to the same level. This sounds like a job for JB38, etc!
One thing though - try using the lead from the Richer Sounds TV on the Panasonic - does it make a difference?
| link to this comment |
Brianist: I can't think of the last time I used the Red Button, and I've met a fair number of customers who have never used it at all. I suspect it will not be much missed.
I notice BBC Monitoring will be hit - you'd have thought the government would think that a valuable resource in todays world, which is perhaps why they are doing it!
The BBC is putting pressure on the government to close the loophole, as they promised. You wonder how long the government is going to spin this out for, like someone dangling a toy in front of a toddler, only to snatch it away when they get close.
Jesse Norma's comments on the Media Show today were slightly alarming. The idea that the BBC should no longer have its own studios would seem to have a hidden (but unsubtle) meaning - if the BBC cannot make its own programmes any longer, its much easier to cut it down to the sort of size the government wants. He did make me laugh when he said that his committee had no bias towards the BBC....I'm not sure I'd take him at his word.
| link to this comment |
Alex: Just on buying a new TV, measure the distance where you sit from your current TV, and add a foot or two. Which has a vague but sort of useful guide to what size you should get, but if your 8-11ft away, go for a 40-43in.
Freeview HD is a must, the more HDMI's the better, and you paying for the panel. The better it is, the higher the cost. A decent 2D 40in would be under 400 quid, and a very decent mid range TV (better panel and 4 HDMI's) would be 499 or less. Sony, Samsun and LG all have decent sets out, and I've been recommending the Samsung H6400 for ages - last years model (so about the price of this years entry model), but ticks all my boxes. At 399 for the 40in, its an excellent baseline.
Try to go to a decent store (not a catalogue shop or supermarket) and ask questions. You just need a decent remote, lots of connections, and the best black/whites and best movement you can for your money.
| link to this comment |
Mazbar: I'd love to hear what the problem is as well! My only thought was that a cable had been damaged in such a way to kill certain muxs, but being perfect on others. It would be nice to have a solution to the mystery.
| link to this comment |
Sunday 15 November 2015 8:45PM
George Buchanan: Brianist explained some time ago that having a picture (any picture) improves how Google ranks the webpage. I have no idea why Brianist chose that particular photo, but its nicer than many stock pics.
Nick: And once again your with the bizarre over the top rhetoric, and endless derp culled from the more fevered parts of the intertubes.
Once again, I don't work for the BBC, and have often had a go at it. And I doubt I'm its only fan...
Popular? Lets see. The most popular single channel by audience in the UK is ....BBC1. A channel watched at least once a week by 93% of households.
Most popular single radio station in the UK? BBC Radio 2.
Most popular websites in the UK? According to Alexa, Google (UK) and Google.com are 1 & 2. Followed by Facebook, Youtube, Amazon and Ebay. At no.7 is the BBC. Worryingly, a webiste called 'theladbible' (never heard of it) is at 12, and the next media website is the Daily Mail, at 14. The Guardian is at 16.
Most trusted News provider? TV is put ahead of papers, then radio and then the internet BBC Poll: Trust in Media - Countries when people are polled in the UK. Most trusted single source (32%) - the BBC. ITV news gets 8%. Actually, the BBC website gets 3%, and the World Service and BBC Radio generally each get 2%, by themselves. Thats 39% for the BBC in total. The next gets 8%, Sky News gets 7% and the DM (the highest scoring paper), gets 3%.
Its also the most trusted news brand - The UK's national news brands rated in order of trust: from the BBC down to the Daily Star | Press Gazette
It also breaks stories from more international locations and its reporting is retweeted more often than any other broadcaster - BBC - BBC World News best for global breaking news - Media Centre
The most trusted news outles by people of all political hues in the US - the BBC and the Economist - Here Are The Most- And Least-Trusted News Outlets In America - Business Insider
So the evidence (and thats actual evidence, not made up derp) would suggest that, yeah, its popular! And can I point out that that research took me 5 minutes on Google - I'm not typing this from a secret 'rapid response' bunker underneath Broadcasting House, using a special database. Just basic typing skills and the ability to vaguely spell. Its turns out, as Stephen Colbert said, that facts have a liberal bias.
OK, so we get that you dont like the BBC much. But your household and the people you happen to chat to about the BBC are not exactly a large sample (have you ever heard of comfirmation bias?). Actual polling says your wrong.
The 1000 licences cancelled a day story is totally bogus, as you well know, since I replied to your previous attempt to push this nonsense with this link. - http://www.theguardian.co…mail . Since I've mentioned this before (16th August), we are back to derp. And the total figure not only rose from 2013-14, but its seems likely that it will be larger still for 2015 - Number of TV licences rises despite more households giving up sets | Media | The Guardian . Facts are so awful, aren't they?
' The commentator is intelligent enough to spot that the BBC has become a rancid bunch of lefty/ Marxists.' ROFLMAOYSST is all I can say to that. Thats tin foil hat territory.
Again, you've mentioned before that you refuse to believe in basic physics and vast amounts of peer reviewed research, and thus reject AGM as a reality. The BBC is actually pretty feeble on climate change - they generally do their best not to cover it, and seem to think that good reporting is to reflect 'two sides', even though one side is talking nonsense. I pointed this out on the 23rd August, along with a whole host of highly regarded websites which explain scientific reality in very simple ways.
However, if you dont think the BBC is telling the trust about climate change, how about Exxon? Its turns out they knew that burning fossil fuels would lead to climate change as early as 1977 RSS They just didn't want to tell anyone about it, because that would make less money http://graphics.latimes.c…rch/
As Huxley put it - Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.