No professional fitting here, just installed as per the regs by me and my father in law.

As above – the DAC in your phone is pretty good, in addition, the weak link is likely to be the format the music is stored in to start with – MP3’s through a £300 DAC will still sound like MP3’s, and the limits they have. (Not that I have anything against MP3’s per se).

They work like this: – Digital connection (lightning in your case) -> DAC -> Analogue connection -> Elsewhere (amp in your case).

Unless you want a more complete description of how they work…

Our cat is called Kropotkin, it was supposed to be a girl, and was going to be Rosa Luxemburg.

The 200 has a huge battery life compared to a phone though.

This.

9 hours riding, Garmin Edge 200 – 50% battery used. Not seen a phone that can do that.

That said, sounds like a brilliant album, although I still think bald Hawtin is best Hawtin.

it is on Spotify – https://play.spotify.com/album/7LYlJARuiB8DDlGTEUpU12?play=true&utm_source=open.spotify.com&utm_medium=open

The play 8 tracks still only gives you a preview not the whole thing – you can skip through and listen to different bits, but the amount of time is limited.

The right routes and the right distance.

There are some bits of road that I enjoy riding as much as mountain biking, they flow just right, they are a challenge to ride, but are fast and exciting.

I also find that I really enjoy riding 30km, I can smash round it in an hour and get my riding fix – longer, and it’s a challenge and I can get on a mountain bike for a couple of hours and have different fun, shorter, and I don’t even get warmed up.

I will be trundling into Staveley on Saturday at the end of giving the Lakeland 200 a go, will be about waiting for trains etc. looks like I am unlikely to get a quick bite to eat there.

but the tyre buzzes when the fork compresses.

This is less likely to be 29er related, and more likely to be stack height related. The maximum size bag is clearly going to be a function of the stack height, bikes with a really low stack will buzz when the forks compress. The bloke I rode the WRThing with had this very issue with a wildcat harness – not Wildcats fault, it strapped everything up perfectly, but the distance from handlebars to crown wasn’t big enough for a dry bag.

Those of you just strapping the drybag to the saddle/seatpost, what are you packing in it,

I tend to roll stuff up in my sleeping bag or in my mat – out front is the sleeping bag, with stuff for the night rolled into it (spare socks, food etc. out back is the sleeping mat, with suff for the night in it (more food, bivvi bag), in the frame bag is stuff I might want in the day plus cooking kit and repair stuff.

Noodles, cupasoup type things as sauce, tin of sardines.

Couscous, cupasoup type thing as sauce, not dried lentils

Or very similar tends to be my evening meal.

http://road.cc/content/news/120600-bob-brayshaw-interview-inside-tour-de-france-machine-grand-départs-head-safety

Roads closed to cyclists half hour before caravan passes
Road.cc: A lot of cyclists are planning on riding to their viewing point, possibly on the Tour route once it’s been closed to motor traffic. Will this be possible and how long before the caravan/race passes will roads be closed to cyclists?

Bob Brayshaw: Cyclists and pedestrians will be able to use the route up until 30 minutes before the caravan arrives. Along the route pedestrian access will be available through stewarded crossing points.

Although the route must be clear half an hour before the caravan coming through, about two hours before the race, this guidance may change on the day for operational reasons. Follow the advice of stewards to stay safe. If you are planning to take your bike with you, plan to make it your primary mode of transport, so ride it to and from the Tour.

Seems pretty much like you can ride a bike on the closed roads, but not drive car, up until 30mins before the caravan comes through, the timings are all on the Tour Grand Depart website – here: http://letour.yorkshire.com/the-grand-depart-2014/timings

Reading around, it’s pretty much the same on the way out – the roads will be shut until it is safe to open them, there will be loads of people trying to get around and back home, so depending on which section it is, you might find that you are fighting against the tide or with the crowd on the day, but the road is likely to be open again, at least at some points, by the time you get round to Harrogate.

Textwrangler will directly access and edit/save etc. html on a server, so no need for an FTP for the HMTL.

OSx based FTP – FileZilla.

Stickers saying “Enduro Specific” on everything.

Nor particularly Gnarr, but Hicks Lodge in Moira near Ashby De La Zouch is pretty good for the little ones – trailer, tag along whatever – although when my 7 year old and I were riding round the Blue, there were a few blokes in armour, which was a little excessive, he did look funny stuck behind a little girl in a dress though.

They aren’t far, we did the family loop as a family, and me and my 7 year old did the blue loop twice, so not worth travelling, but if you are local, then it’s pretty good.

Bump for the tea time crowd.

Many cartoons did not vote them into govt because they think Green Party is going to be leader of cartoon policies? Yes!

Wow, such jabbering, many writings, very nonsense. Cool story Shibes.

http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/hi-gear-regulate-short-sleeve-tech-tee-p205118

Currently £4, I bought mine for £6, and they were worth that. Comfy, do the job, nothing special, cheap.

They have good ideas but those ideas are only implementable if the entire world reboot or re-evolved again. i.e. extinct and start again.

Is this based on actual, real Green Party policies, or a cartoon misrepresentation of Green Party policies?

(as is the Green Party btw)

What’s undemocratic about the Green Party?

(I’ll be honest, I’ve got a bloody great list of stuff, I’m just wondering what your particular issues with them are)

What absolute tosh, you could have actually read their policies before commenting.

LMGTFY: Green Party Education

Nice to see policy which I helped write getting quoted…

It’s just one X in one box.

I voted Labour for the first time since 1997, tactical vote against UKIP, would have gone Green but they don’t stand a chance in the West Mids according to my mate Bat:

That was based on some out of date polling…the more recent yougov polls put the Green Party on a closer footing in the midlands – although their data isn’t directly related to the actual constituencies.

I personally think that the Greens have as much chance of winning a seat as Labour do of winning another – running the latest polling data through a D’hont calculator put the final seat going to UKIP or the Greens depending on the precise swing.

There is always the cock and balls on the ballot paper option.

The Green Party has candidates in every region…or do they come under “fruit loops” for you.

lots of people putting whipped cream on their coffee?

that they want a blanket ban on all GM crops!

It doesn’t say that though, does it. It specifically uses the word moratorium – that is, a temporary cessation, not a blanket ban – if it was a ban, then it would have said it. A moratorium doesn’t preclude the use of it in the future.

I personally have nothing against genetic modification as a thing, and your absurd suggestion that I do is a tedious knee jerk reaction. As I said, the opposition to it is political, not scientific.

It’s worth noting that on the agenda for the Autumn Conference is a proposal to re-write the above to read:

“Synopsis: Corporations use GM technology to control food markets. This motion strengthens regulations to counter this, as part of a pro-science and precautionary approach.

Delete FA420 part k.

Replace FA710 with the following:
Genetic engineering is a technology that may be beneficial as part of a sustainable agriculture industy. However, there are possible drawbacks and these must be balanced with the potential benefits. Genetic engineering will not solve the problems created by industrialised agriculture and it may add to them. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) tend to secure large profits for a few multinational companies, rather than making farming easier or more efficient.

Replace FA720-FA721 with the following and renumber accordingly:

FA720 The Green Party will introduce regulation to ensure that GM crops can only be grown outside of a laboratory environment if they pass strict environmental and health tests. The relevant sections of the scientific community will be consulted in the process of creating this regulation.

FA721 We define GM food as any:
(a) that is genetically modified or includes ingredients from genetically modified crops; or
(b) that is from genetically modified animals; or
(c) that is from animals that have been fed genetically modified feed.
We recognise that some consumers do not wish to buy GM foods so will require all GM food products to be labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients.

FA722 One of the biggest problems with GM food, is the corporate control of the food market, enforced through patents. Our ban on patenting genes of living organisms (FA702 ) will help to counter this.

FA723 We will push for national and international regulation to require GM crops to be “open source” – that is, their genetic code and technical documents outlining engineering procedures will be open to public inspection, free of cost. This will enable wider analysis, peer-review and derivative research.”

Which I will be supporting.

Selective quoting, why?

The full quote…

FA314 The Green Party supports a moratorium on production and import of genetically modified (GM) foods, including food from animals fed on GM feed. Whilst such food is available, it must be labelled as including GM ingredients. (See FA720-721)

With the full policy section:

Genetic Modification
Background

FA710 Genetic engineering will not solve the problems created by industrialised agriculture and it may add to them. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) tend to secure large profits for a few multinational companies, rather than making farming easier or more efficient.

FA711 Many environmental problems have been associated with genetically modified (GM) crops:

(a) GM crops may cross-breed with wild varieties or wild species and transfer genes to other plants, posing a long-term threat to wildlife and biodiversity.

(b) Herbicide-resistant genes have been transferred to other plants, creating ‘super weeds’.

(c) Herbicides used with GM crops have been shown to harm both wildlife and human health.

(d) GM crops producing bio-pesticide toxins may be toxic to wildlife and encourage resistance in the target species.

(e) GM crops undermine organic and conventional farming through cross-contamination and by creation of resistant pests.

FA712 The use of GM crops in poor countries has proved disastrous to farming communities. Not only have the crops failed in many cases, but they undermine the diversity of local seed varieties with monoculture GM crops designed to secure profits for multinational biotechnology companies. There is no evidence that GM crops will ‘solve’ the problem of world food shortages through increased productivity: there are many social and economic issues that need to be addressed to prevent food shortages in poorer countries. (See also ST362, ST370)

FA713 Despite widespread introduction of GM foods in the United States and elsewhere, the potential dangers of GM foods to human health have not been properly investigated and risks remain considerable.

Policies

FA720 The Green Party supports a moratorium on the use of GMOs in all agricultural systems including production of human food and animal feed and on importation of GM food or feed. (See AR413, CC254, EU489 and ST364)

FA721 We define GM food as any:

(a) that is genetically modified or includes ingredients from genetically modified crops; or

(b) that is from genetically modified animals; or

(c) that is from animals that have been fed genetically modified feed.

So long as any such food is available in this country, it must be labelled as containing genetically modified ingredients or coming from genetically modified sources.

FA722 The Green Party will establish and uphold the rights of consumers, farmers and local authorities to choose GM-free food and to establish GM-free zones. We will legislate for a strict liability regime which makes biotech (GM seed) companies and GM food producers fully liable for any losses through contamination or harm caused to the environment or human health. (See ST364)

FA723 We will apply the precautionary principle and place strict conditions on research using genetic engineering to ensure that GMOs do not escape, pollinate other plants or cause other damage. (See ST363)

At least reference the whole thing, rather than being selective.

I’m not saying it’s perfect, and there is almost certainly a lengthy background paper hidden somewhere on the members only bit of the website which provides a lengthy background to the reasons for these aspects of the policy as well. However, there is more to it than your very selective quote.

In terms of why do people not vote green – other than lack of media coverage (just look at the number of times the similarly sized (if not smaller) in terms of representation UKIP gets on the radio and TV, compared to a Green representative and you can see there is a massive discrepancy – despite the fact that UKIP is a single issue party, and the Green Party is not.

There is a structural bias against the green party is a lot if different things – take polling for example, some polling companies (ComRes and ICM) never include a specific option to indicate a green vote – you can say it in the free text, but this will tend to under report – YouGov sometimes has a green option, and sometimes does not. All of them consistently include a UKIP option – this has an impact on the media coverage, and therefore the awareness, which translates to votes.

Within the party, the reaction against this has been to focus on winning elections on the ground, by getting round to people’s houses and talking to them, and demonstrating that a Green Councillor will be a good thing for them locally – many people never a see a councillor, and the fact that the party makes an effort in a lot of places (this is how it has taken a whole bunch of seats in the west midlands recently) means it gets a foothold – which in some places it has built on (Brighton, Bristol, Norwich, Solihull, Lancaster). These have all been won by boots on the ground election tactics, something the Tories all but abandoned years ago, UKIP have never done, and is sporadic in Labour and the Lib Dems, for Greens it’s the only approach that has been demonstrated to work.

To answer the question “where do the Greens stand on” the best way to answer is look here:

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/

Out of interest, where do the Greens stand on the biggest issue with sustainability, which is the massively expanding global population?

To answer this specifically, look here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pp.html

Their science policy is stuck in the dark ages anti gm, anti stem cell, and generally very damaging to medical and scuentific research on (knee jerk) principal rather than based on any sound reasoning
As a scientist I can’t see past that no matter how much I a agree with their other policies

Also they need to get behind nuclear

That’s not a realistic representation of Green Science policy at all, perhaps “as a scientist” you might want to do some research and provide evidence to back up your assertion?

Stem Cells:

“The Green Party acknowledges the existing and potential future benefits to humans and other animals from stem cell technologies, using both adult and embryonic cellular material. These benefits include direct medical advances, improved non-animal testing methods for new medical treatments, and the advancement of knowledge. However, we also emphasize the importance of continuing ethical regulation, adequate government funding, and transparency of research in the areas of embryonic and adult stem cell technologies, to protect donors and the public health.”

Lots on GM here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/fa.html but it’s probably a political opposition to GM rather than a scientific one – where GM is used to proliferate a monopoly for a tiny number of massive producers, then it’s only going to cause problems – from an agriculture problem, monocultures can be devastating to food supplies, see bananas for a looming problem with that – making GM monocultures won’t solve the problem, and puts the “solution” in the hands of a small number of companies.

Again, not sure what you mean by research – there are a number of relevant policies there.

Nuclear – I don’t disagree, but me and people like me are yet to win the argument in the party. However, the fact that, as a party, we discus and agree on a set of policies for everyone to see means that ordinary people, and indeed experts, have a much greater degree of influence in the policies of the party than any other party.

Musepack files – there are a number of convertors here: http://www.musepack.net/index.php?pg=pro

In the Giro, there is a prize for the longest break away rider of the day: http://inrng.com/2014/05/giro-prizes-2014/

They do sometimes win the stage – Tour of California today as well (Taylor Phinney), Womens Tour the other day (Ratto), both had breaks that stuck – there is a possibility that the stage tomorrow might have a break that stays away.

I would take what the commentators on Euro sport say with a pinch of salt – they generally over play the hand of the best known names, and play down the chances of everyone else, to the point that it gets a bit dull.

To imagine otherwise is wishful thinking. Hence why some Green party supporters who have a sense of reality have changed their stance.

I wish I could support the Green party as I like a lot of what they stand for (and the Green party councillors etc. I’ve come into contact with seem to be very intelligent and sensible people).

Energy is by far and away not my area – however, the full policy is currently being revised in quite some depth, I can send over a copy along with the background paper if you like – it’s to be voted on in September.

The basic idea is a decrease in electricity use by increased efficiency by a third in order to decrease the base loading, then phase out Nuclear and fossil fuel.

On the basis that I want to vote for the strongest challenger to ukip, is there somewhere that gives the odds for local and euro elections?

The way the voting works, it’s not that simple – because it’s not first past the post, there is no “vote for X to block Y” at the moment, it is likely that UKIP will get MEP’s in most regions based on polling with the exception of Scotland – but you need to look at how the balance of votes will work out from the polling through the D’Hont calculations – e.g. voting for a major party which is already likely to return candidates means that it’s unlikely to block anything, but voting for a smaller party is more likely to push it up to take a seat – the purpose of the party list system is to remove a lot of the tactics, there is no minimum electoral threshold, which can introduce some tactics to the system. Generally, under the system in use, it’s best to just vote for the party who you want, and if there is more than one, vote for the one which is likely to get less votes, as yours will likely to count for more by the end of it.

I’ll be voting Green, for my mate Will, who is the lead candidate in the West Midlands.

fair enough they dont understand the need for animal testing, everyone loves fluffy animals?!?

This is an area where I disagree with party policy, I don’t support an immediate ban on animal testing, and wouldn’t want to lose it asa technique to use where appropriate – I don’t think the current government/previous governments have got it right either, there seems to be a massive focus on it as a technique when it’s not always that useful.

but their stance on embryonic stem cells
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jun/01/european-elections-science-stem-cells-gm?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

This is from 2009 – this is a long time in Green Party policy making (where policies can be revised at two opportunities every year) and much of the policy which informed that article is no longer party policy – that is the nature of a democratic decision making process – people who are informed about science, and are willing to sit down and put forward informed and useful policies.

The current policy on Stem Cells and research is:

“The Green Party acknowledges the existing and potential future benefits to humans and other animals from stem cell technologies, using both adult and embryonic cellular material. These benefits include direct medical advances, improved non-animal testing methods for new medical treatments, and the advancement of knowledge. However, we also emphasize the importance of continuing ethical regulation, adequate government funding, and transparency of research in the areas of embryonic and adult stem cell technologies, to protect donors and the public health.”

Which is a hell of a lot clearer than the policy of the Labour party, or any other party, who only have a vague mumble.

HE 324 from here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/he.html

their confusion over nuclear power

There is no confusion over nuclear power, The Green Party is opposed to it – and it’s a sensible position to take. Whilst other parties would not invest heavily enough in renewables to ensure that no nuclear meant more fossil fuels, the Green Party would invest enough in renewables to ensure that no nuclear did not require greater fossil fuel usage. I agree that other parties have to support investment (however you drew it up) in new nuclear, but that’s simply because they are not willing to invest in other sources of power, not because there is a predetermined course along which they must go.

and ultimately their dogmatic rejection and ignorance over GM crops

I agree, the policy on GM isn’t right, and needs sorting. I think the underlying problem with GM is not the science, it’s the politics – which is pretty well covered in Green Party policies:

“ST362 Control of research and the use of genetic engineering by a few multinational companies threatens the autonomy of farmers and health services and makes profit an underlying motive for the use of GMOs.”

The problem is not GM per se, but the fact that GM is currently being pursued to close down the autonomy of farmers and ensure a greater level of control by a smaller and smaller number of massive companies – that’s not healthy for anyone.

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/st.html

means an otherwise worthy party are best kept on the fringes IMHO

Given that your impression of what Green Party policies are is, as far as I can tell, quite different to what they actually are, I’m not sure if your judgement is that great – particularly given that they are published online for all to see. As a scientist, I would expect you to base your decision on the best available evidence of what the policies are – rather than relying on old data.

The problem with the Greens is their policies were salvaged from the old school Labour bin.
A government wielding big stick approach to saving the environment isn’t going to work,

I don’t think that’s true, and I’m interested in which policies you think best characterise that – http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ The Green Party has more young members than most parties, and a large number of active members are not old enough to remember old Labour, I’m older than the author of the most recent Euro Elections Manifesto, and I wasn’t old enough to vote out the last Tory government Nu Labour is the only Labour i’ve ever known.

The Greens are, by a long way, the most libertarian party currently operating in British politics – basically every single other political party is deeply authoritarian by comparison – the Green approach is broadly one of genuine decentralisation – unlike the current government who dress up moving more power to whitehall as local control – like Free Schools and Academies.

the incentivised, competitive version of capitalism might, but the Greens for some reason can’t see that.

I’m not sure what you mean by that – i’m happy to be a died in the wool anti-capitalist, so generally I disagree that capitalism can do anything useful for the environment – more competition means more growth, which means a greater degree of exploitation of the worlds resources – which is how we got into this mess in the first place – but i’m interested in hearing the arguments.

It’s also pretty clear that a lot of ‘Green’ policies are doing more harm than good.

This is interesting this – The ‘Green’ Party have to take the wrap for the ‘green’ policies of other parties – even if they are not what we would support or implement…I think there are some so called ‘green’ initiatives which are total crap, and are greenwashing for the sake of appearance, there are some ‘green’ policies which are excellent – I’m keen on the recent experiment in Paris with free public transport, for example…neither of them are Green Party policies, but both of them are ‘green’ policies.

bokonon – Thatis why I just filled my postal vote in for the Green party.

It’s why I dedicate an inordinate amount of my time to campaigning for and working for (volunteering for) the party as well.

It is clear on the door step, that it is difficult to engage people in discussions about policies – the notion that “there is no alternative” is a very strong one, that governments don’t really have a choice, any government you elect will have to do these things – cut welfare, privatise more stuff, give tax breaks to rich people and decrease the amount of protection employees get – that all the major parties have signed up to this mantra is a real concern, that people generally are going along with it is even worse.

Sorry Ernie, but thats complete cobblers. I’m absolutely infuriated by the lack of policies. And politicians making vague, wooly noncommittal noises as a supposed substitute for them.

If people weren’t bothered, then people wouldn’t read broadsheet newspapers, watch Newsnight or Question Time, listen to the Today programme in the morning. Or generally get apoplectic with rage, and rant on internet forums

I disagree – there are parties with policies, and they are ignored, The Green Party has pages and pages and pages of fairly detailed in depth policies on everything you could imagine, all democratically agreed by the party as a whole at national conferences over a period of years – http://policy.greenparty.org.uk and yet people aren’t much interested – The Green Party is dismissed as being only about the environment, despite having pretty good evidence to the contrary, available to everyone, fairly easily.

people simply aren’t interested in “policies”.

Seems like a reasonable assessment of the situation. You can tell people what your policies are, but that won’t convince them to vote for you.

I avoid commuting at School kick out time so I don’t have to plough through the hoardes of kids blocking the cycle path. The parked cars are bad enough without having to avoid erratically moving teenagers.

Stoke on Trent is an area with a Labour MP, Labour Run council and has done pretty much for ever. They also have strong support of UKIP – it’s very much the Frank Field wing of Labour supporters which will switch to UKIP.

I think it’s incorrect to view UKIP as a party which has a specific position on things and can be placed at a particular point on the political spectrum at any one time. They are a populist party, ready to tear up everything from the past and just fly in a new set of policies if it will get them more votes – the 2010 General Election manifesto was disappeared in such a way, and the local election manifesto in a similar way before that. Their positions are often contradictory and generally rely on rhetorical approaches rather than providing actual solutions to issues – you never hear of UKIP local councillors running around like blue arced flies doing boring local council casework – which almost every other party does – because that’s not how they get elected.

The European elections are the perfect time for them – people don’t really understand how our interaction with Europe works, and it’s easier to keep on stating lies over and over than explain the intricacies of the reality – e.g. 29milion Romanian’s and Bulgarians are coming to a town near year – the reality – 1,300 less romanians and bulgarians in the country…but the headline figure is already out there, the damage is done.

blah blah blah [photo] For the Love of Merckx !

Sorry what?