Looks like Dave. Characteristic tail feathers.

duckman,

Have you actually watched the video in the link I posted a couple of posts back?

duckman

So the charge is “possession of a nice sports jacket”?

Even if all was as your mate says then I think he has the wrong approach. Even if there was a short term gain in getting the protestors out of F&M (and I don’t think there was because it seems obvious from the video that they had asked to leave but were actually being asked to stay in (spode teapotting) whilst things were being organised outside) then there will still be a massive long term loss of trust (if possible) in the police who will now be seen by even more (fairly mild) people as totally untrustworthy. What happens at the next demo, when they might be having to deal with some properly difficult people, rather than a bunch of upper-class students? I’m afraid that I don’t think that the ends justify the means. And I also think the police chose a pretty bloody soft target.

OTOH loads of photographers managed to take loads of pictures of actual hooligans doing real damage with very few police in sight.

Or there’s the Sun’s version of events:

A 1,000-strong mob stormed the Queen’s favourite food store Fortnum & Mason, where tourists cowered in terror as yobs threatened to smash up the shop.

I’ve got 3 nipples.

Actually, what I find really depressing (call me cynical) is that probably the woman Chief Inspector may well have been acting in good faith, and may well have been sent in to be the acceptable face of the police in F&M, but that someone higher up the tree was probably using her in the same way that they were using the protestors to try to engineer the story. Bet she’s not pleased with the way she looks on the video either.

It’s the same cynicism that the police displayed when they left that empty van in the middle of the street just asking for it to be smashed up at the tuition fees demo.

OTOH the cop who gets filmed just after the protestors ask why they are being held looks unfortunately like the steriotypical Constable Savage

Here’s the latest footage of many of those arrested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/28/cuts-protest-uk-uncut-fortnum

SCUM!!!!

They also do seasonal ales. Hopping Hare which is around now has a similar crisp / refreshing kick to the Golden Glory. Quite like the seasonality idea.

As alluded to by a few others, the really important point isn’t how much is left, but how easy/difficult it is to recover.

We have passed peak oil.

That means that from now on there will be less and less oil available each year. A few (relatively speaking) new deposits are being found but they are mainly low grade or hard to extract, whereas the easy to get at stuff is mainly gone.

In the meantime more and more of the growing population aspire (largely due to our own (western) marketing efforts) to have more and more stuff all of which takes oil to produce/transport.

The argument that economics will take care of everything seems pretty lame to me. There is a question of ERoEI (energy return on energy invested) which essentially means that you need to use more of your oil up getting it to market (a lot more ).

It also means of course that in using oil you are also increasing the amount of CO2 produced for every bit of oil that the end consumer uses, right at a point when that is starting to be frowned upon.

I like to think so.

Which is all very well for smoothing out normal demand peaks, not so good for getting rid of consumption when the wind doesn’t blow – I don’t suppose people will be too impressed at being told they have to wear dirty clothes, eat of dirty plates and sit in a cold house because there’s a big high pressure area sitting over the UK.

I realise there’s a touch of devil’s advocate going on here, but even so this is grasping at straws.

Are these really insurmountable problems? More difficult to deal with than the problems of nuclear waste?

I seem to remember (on several occasions) you berating others for raising their strawman arguments, but you’re doing the same.

No one (other than you) has suggested that there will be times with no power whatsoever available, but even so, I for one am prepared to step up to the parapet and offer to hand-wash my dishes if that means we can avoid the next wave of nuclear power stations in this country – OK?

I thought this was a reasonable question too.

I don’t see a lot of people up in arms because the Japanese stock market has dropped 20%.

Are all those people selling shares in Japanese companies “callous” (presumably a lot of them will actually be Japanese), or are they just getting on doing their jobs,which I’m sure many people would say was the best thing they could be doing to maintain as near to ‘normal’ life as possible?

So given there hasn’t been an accident with a current generation nuclear generator, that’s a purely hypothetical risk, and you can’t compare with more dangerous methods of energy production in which fatal accidents have occurred, like hydropower

Whether or not more modern reactors are safer isn’t really the point.

In the past I’ve heard plenty of people expounding about how wonderful nuclear power is in Japan, and how they have a flawless safety record. Everybody has a flawless safety record until the very moment that they haven’t.

If these old reactors were inherantly less safe than current reactors, then surely it would have been a good idea to either improve their saftey features or shut them down some time ago. But IMO that’s not how the nuclear industry works. Instead it relies on the support of a bunch of technophiles who think that everything can be managed, even when the evidence is right in front of them.

I don’t give a sh1t if the UK is unlikely to suffer from a 9.0 earthquake. I don’t want a new generation of Nuclear Power here, because it is usually not the foreseeable problems that go bad (except in this case!) but the unforseeable ones, and having a bunch of appologists for the nuclear industry telling me how they are going to make sure that ‘lessons are learned’ or that ‘technology is better now’ or ‘that shouldn’t have happened’ doesn’t comfort me very much.

I’m afraid that no amount of statistics about numbers of coal miners killed will ever convice me that nuclear is a good idea. Surely the correct response would be to call for coal mining to be made safer? Or better still to start to finally accept that our existing energy usage is unsustainable and try to at least start cutting back on consumption?

Anyway, I’m sure I’ll be kept warm enough basking in the flames of the forum, but I’m hoping that this latest wake up call will at least rouse a few more people from their technology induced stupors.

Once told Leslie Crowther which bus to get on in London.

Said hello to the bloke with the beard off that old programme with Sarah Kennedy and Jeremy Beadle, when he was walking his dog.

Had Emlyn Hughes push in in front of me at a queue in a petrol station.

Had Christopher Biggins push in in front of me in a pub.

Was slightly off-hand with Jimmy Edwards whilst serving him in a pub.

Did a couple of mountain marathons with Ranulph Fiennes.

Sat a couple of tables away from Posh and Becks in a restaurant.

Interviewed Mark Radcliff for a student magazine (and was made tea by Lard).

Spoke at a public meeting immediately prior to Edward Fox.

Was an extra in a TV drama with Christopher Ecclestone.

Was at a party with Mick Jagger and Kate Moss.

I made something as near as I could to his treacle tart recipe from his book In Search of Perfection, and I have to say it was very very good.

If you like him try reading McGee “On food and Cooking” which is where he gets a lot of his food science inspiration.

As I’ve already pointed out, you only made that statement once you started backtracking.

Sure you can have a go at me for being a bit flippant, but the point is you know you are wrong on the substantive point.

In the early nineties the Cubans lost their support from the Soviet Union when it collapsed. I think that any reasonable person might characterise that as the “end” of cheap oil.

And that was the reason that Cuba changed its agricultural system.

Nowadays Cuba does get some oil (but not nearly so much as it got in Soviet days) from Venezuela, but it is far from “cheap”. They may pay fewer dollars for it than world prices, but instead they provide Venezuela with up to 20,000 medical and other professional staff.

I’m glad you’ve stopped looking for ways to try and misinterpret what I’ve said – you’re right, it is a waste of time.

So, in your universe, given that the Cubans didn’t lose their access to cheap oil, why do you think they completely changed their agricultural system from the same sort of petrochemical based intensive system as everyone else with access to cheap oil, to one that used almost no oil and was therefore largely organic?

I use it for organising 150,000+ images (mainly jpeg) and also for retouching/resizing and batch processing. I’ve not really looked closely at the other systems but it is an amazing bit of software. Much simpler and more intuitive than Photoshop for retouching but also makes it really easy to search for pictures by a massive number of criteria.

OK ernie,

just to satisfy my curiosity, when I said

have a look at agriculture in Cuba since the fall of Soviet Communism (and the end of Cuba’s access to cheap oil)

what do you think I meant?

and if you don’t think I should have used the word “end”, how might I have phrased it better?

But had you also thought of the veggy option? Spanakopita (haven’t got the energy for another massive description – but I add toasted pine nuts to basic recipe) is one of our dinner party favourites – Google it, and the last time we had people over I made a really nice leek risotto with balsamic roast cherry tomatoes on the vine and parmesan crisps – looks fantastic and tastes delicious – don’t think anyone even noticed it was vegetarian.

Trouble with a lot of fish is it’s easy to over or under cook.

However, the old faithful fish pie is more difficult than most to ruin and you can do a lot of the tricky bits ahead of time.

What you need is some salmon, some chunky white fish (cod good) and some prawns. Probably for a generous pie for 4 you’ll want the equivalent of 3 salmon steaks, same mount of cod (a biggish fillet) – maybe 300 gms of each (I’m not good with actual weights) and a handful of prawns.

Cook the fish separately in two frying pans (if you have 2 – makes it easier to cook both accurately) in a bit of butter until it is just done (salmon will flake off the bone, cod just starting to flake) doesn’t matter if you poke it about in the pan whilst cooking to investigate as you are going to flake it anyway. Take off the heat and pull the fish away from bones/skin and put to one side – try to keep it in big bite size lumps. Make sure you meticulously check over the fish for bones. Do not overcook as it is going to get well and truly cooked in the pie anyway.

Pour any butter left in the frying pans through a sieve into a saucepan. Make a white sauce (more butter if needs be + flour to make a paste then gradually add milk stirring all the while. Salt. Make enough sauce to keep the whole dish fairly squishy – as much sauce as fish.

When the sauce is ready add in the fish and prawns (I also like to chuck in some capers) don’t stir too much as you want the fish to stay in lumps. Then pour into your pie dish.

You can do all the above ahead of time if you want.

Shortly before guests arrive make some nice creamy mash. Splash out on some Rooster or Desiree potatoes if available. Make a similar amount of mash as fish/sauce. After mashing the spuds add some butter and milk an beat with a big fork to get it properly creamy. I add some white pepper.

Put mash on fish. Grate over some cheddar cheese and put in oven at about gas 5-6 for half an hour. If necessary whack under grill for a minute to get cheese bubbling at the end.

I would serve with maybe Chantenay carrots (little ones) or just sliced carrots, that I steam and then put back into the saucepan when cooked with butter, lemon juice and black pepper and toss about until coated. Plus maybe some broccoli or spring greens.

Or if you don’t fancy those veg a different sort of combination might be some roast tomatoes (halve and put on a tray with some oil drizzled over and bung in oven for an hour) with some wilted spinach.

Yum.

Superb.

I’d like one just for commuting.

Have you done any work to try and shape the beam?

This feels a bit like the episode of Father Ted where Ted is trying to explain to Dougal the difference between small and far-away.

The “other small low-grade reserves” would be the ones that make up about 0.01% of global reserves.

@don simon,

Or, the non-boorish answer to your question, is that the Economist is talking about the 20 billion (or 5 billion) barrels of deep-water off-shore oil discovered recently.

Cuba does have some other small low-grade reserves.

I know you don’t bother to read the stuff I link to, but it looks like you don’t even bother to read the articles at the end of your own links!

Oil now second-leading Cuban export – gov’t report

What’s this supposed to prove? The article is about Cuba importing Venezuelan oil, refining it in a joint venture plant and then re-exporting it.

The latest

Well if you want to say what I’ve already said, then OK – I’ll say it again : “Loss of cheap oil supplies was a very serious problem for Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however it no longer is”

But surely you had already seen that ?

I did see that. And it would have been great if you’d put that in your first post on the subject, but you didn’t. Trying to make it sound as if that was what you meant all along is disingenuous.

Just to repeat my point (as you’ve failed to answer my question above). It was the end of cheap oil from the Soviet Union that shocked Cuba into changing its agricultural system to a largely organic, highly labour intensive one of small farms and urban agriculture.

When I made that point you seemed to be taking issue (with your first post) and then went on to claim that Cuba has a rosy future re’ oil.

So (again), if you wouldn’t characterise the trigger for Cuba’s change as “the end of cheap oil”, how would you like to characterise it?

But as per this digression into Cuba’s current oil supply, I still disagree with your analysis.

AFAIC the only countries that have access to truly cheap (relative term) oil are countries that actually produce it. Back in the day Soviet oil was cheap because world supplies seemed limitless and it was just a question of how quick you could get the stuff out of the ground, and anyway, for political reasons the Russians weren’t that bothered about actually being paid for it. Today it is a different story. Cuba might get some oil from Venezuala at a discount, but it is not “cheap” when you look at the way producer countries use it.

Cuba itself produces a limited amount of low grade oil. The 20 billion barrels you refer to is widely disputed (many think 5bn barrels) but even so it is in deep water and hard to recover (remember that little story about the Deepwater Horizon recently?) and currently they have extracted none of it commercially.

We’ll have to disagree about whether that is a “rosy” situation.

I commute 100 miles per day and tbh petrol would have to triple in price to equal an hours pay, and thats in my gas-guzzler – so no brainer for me.

“no brainer” – are you saying that you don’t mind spending 2 hours sitting in your car + and wouldn’t mind spending another hour working to pay for the privilege, every day?

I also consider that a “no brainer” but I have the opposite view to you.

OK ernie,

Just to go back to where we started this little debate to see if we can find a common starting point:

What was the cause of the switch in Cuba’s agricultural system from conventional industrialised to largely organic small farms / urban agriculture?

Are you actually physically wriggling as you type?

Cuban oil supply

And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that you did say that.

But you implied that Cuba had plenty oil.

I disagree.

I’d go for local but not watch too.

Diesel would have to rise to £3.10/litre before it would cost me the same to drive as it would to use South West Trains for my daily commute.

Except that by then the wider social/economic effects of fuel at that price would have thrown the country into turmoil. Maybe you wouldn’t have a job anymore to commute to?

Even if petrol were free, I don’t think many people would actualy WANT to drive 100 miles each way for work, so that is something we can work with.

I think many people don’t care how far they drive.

A mate of mine commutes 42 miles (over an hour) each way every day and has done for about 15 years. He has (he readily admits) a fairly dull job (he worked in a room with no windows for 10 years!) but has made no effort in all that time to find anything else closer to home, despite living in a city and commuting out every day.

In fact he looks forward to the hour he spends in the car as a stress free hour away from family life (2 small kids) and work to listen to music.

Now, I don’t blame him for feeling like that, but it is a pretty sad state of affairs really.

Similarly my wife commutes 16 miles each way to work as a teacher, while another teacher she knows is at the same time commuting in the opposite direction! Madness. But that is what has happened because of our historical disregard for the value of oil – instead of treating it as a precious and finite resource we’ve been completely gung-ho in the way we use it.

Personally, I think that if we take this current crisis as a hint to start to give a bit more thought to the way we organise ouselves now it might do us all a favour in the long run.

Might go for Digambara Jainist this time.

Your D40 has a DX sensor which is smaller than full frame, so any lens is effectively a bit longer than it would be on a full frame (film) camera. So if you want to shoot “normal” photos then you might prefer a 35 mm lens rather than a 50.

Try locking your zoom (with a bit of duct tape) at either of those focal lengths and see what you get.

Actually, sorry about my bad memory. vinnyeh is right that they do go for more than I thought – I’ve just had a look on ebay and they go for around £300+

Answered your own question

Not really. hitman didn’t say why he was thinking of selling it, Hence my question why?

I just mentioned a couple of weaknesses of that lens to prompt him. I thought it might be helpful in case he’s not the sort of person that thinks a lot about lenses.

I also think that a lot of people worry unnecessarily about things like sharpness as a technical issue as defined by “pixel peepers” (because there is a lot of discussion of these things on forums), when they would be better off thinking about composition, quality of light, mood and various other non-specific non-technical things and worrying less about the kit. I’m not sure that Nikon make any “bad” lenses.

Why? I’ve got an 18-200 lens and it is brilliant if you want to travel light. It’s not the sharpest lens you can buy and it suffers a bit from chromatic aberration, but it is still a good lens. I’ve had DPSs in magazines shot with that lens.

Unless you’re skint and need the money, but from memory I think they go for significantly less than £200 on ebay