Walsingham

It seems pretty clear that Apple turn a lot of peopl off with their stentorian branding. But on balance my guess would be that they turn more people ON with the same process. And given their huge market share is it any wonder they don't change?

No, with respect you can't be actually reading what I'm writing. This isn't about the failure of the reactor building or vessel, which is a single system. In and of itself this need not have been dangerous, provided backup and response measures had been capable of moving to and responding with relevant counter-measures in containment. That's what I mean by the 'system of systems'. What some people call the "so what?" factor. EDIT INSERT: in our era robust systems are designed to transfer resilience to this response phase. So you don't make the original system 'tougher'. But you make its failure easier to cope with. hence the multiple containment areas around a modern reactor. If I have time later today* I'll try to find you some more detailed articles on the subject. But you could also look them up yourself with relative ease. I seem to have the impression that you are at University, or near one (could be my imagination). If so, get access to the Journal of Disaster Management Response. *I won't.

We seem to be speaking at cross purposes, Oblarg, old son. You are seeking to excuse the planning and response with generalities. I am condemning the planing and response of professional responders by pointing out that their profession has been aware of and warning about these exact failures for several years. I can't link to the Financial Times, because it's subscription only online, but it ran many many articles on this topic in the year post Katrina. And that's not even an 'industry' journal. I can't emphasise this enough: the problem has not been that the reactor itself broke down. The problem has been that the system of systems has been unable to cope with the main failure because the system of systems got damaged at the same time.

I'm not going to suggest this is some massive personal failure on your part, but you've not understood the nature of resilience. Obviously you can't proof against force X hitting a system at above z value in one dimension. That's why you have response plans, and redundant systems designed to tackle the failures associated with the primary system. The failure here, as I say is that the multiplicity of damage was not just foreseeable in terms of a very large earthquake/tsunami combination. But that - more importantly - there was a professional/public awareness that disasters should be viewed as multi-dimensional failures. hence to a degree one can excuse the planners for Katrina, but not here. Or are you seriously telling me that you've never heard anyone say "the modern world is increasingly complex and interconnected". If so, ,where have you been for the last five years? Swinging gleefully from the tail of a burmese pony?

Liked the story in Hyperbole and a Half; loved the Charlie Parker/style site. Where in hell did he get all that stuff? It's a goldmine!

Because, my dear cretin, that's what they did.

A further explosion, with serious levels of radiation now being relased at the site. I understand from the BBC that contingency planning accepted the possibility of earthquake but failed to grasp the way natural disasters hit several points at once. The diesel gennies weren't able to cope with a (to me entirely obvious) tsunami, and the backup system (the batteries) presupposed that the roads and other facilities would be available for use. Whereas in reality of course anything which smacks point A hard enough to necessitate point B will also hurt B and C. This is not mere hindsight. If you read any journal to do with disaster response, or insurance underwiting from the period post Hurricane Katrina you will see this criticism underpinning the failure of both 'industries'. I would then regard it as inexcusable that disaster response was not re-examined elsewhere in light of that. It may be understandable, in light of human social and organisational pressure to fail to red flag something which means a big overhaul and shakeup - and disatser planning usually does - but that does not excuse.

SUPPLEMENTAL NEWS

Without doubt or hesitation: The old foodie blog Every day or couple of days you get little anecdotes, quotes, and recipes for incredibly unhealthy or weird historical food. Plus you have to like someone who's written a book entirely about pies and their role in history. EDIT: Quote to float your boat

I assume you are referring to the enforced pederasty?

You don't look a day over 90000. Had very good day work wise, but all the charging about left me feeling awful back wise, and I had to get a cab home at enormous expense. Fell asleep in the cab, though so I feel I got my money's worth.

Watching videos on the BBC and contemplating the shocking horror of sudden death all those poor people had to face. I'd also second Monte's commendation - for what it's worth - on the spirit of collaborative effort and stoicism the Japanese nation is evincing. I don't wish to cheapen that any further by comparisons... Really makes me wonder why we can't seem to get our collective **** together and do something about the very real prospect of mass disasters: eruptions, earthquakes, meteorites... And since we're relatively anonymous I'll confess it makes me utterly despise the fevered halfwits who want us to abandon science and engineering and trust in abject prostration. I'm not saying all religion is like that, but there are strands of all faiths who are determined to focus on things like gay marriage or women's headgear or popular music when what matters is life and death. *melancholy*

Figuratively and literally hit my stride today, hoofing up and down hill in the late sunshine. My back is burning again from the exertion, but no stabbing pains, and I'm really beginning to have hope I can keep this up long term - with all the health and morale benefits you'd expect.

That was kind of my point. My analysis is that the rebels are losing because they are fundamentally and inescapably disorganised. A no-fly zone at best reduces the 'war' to 2 dimensions, and the rebels still can't pass muster. Incidentally, it's gratifying to see one of the world's largest exporters of oil and gas blocking UN resolutions to intervene. I'm not a naif who complains when oil is a power factor, but it's one in the eye for those who claim only the US is guilty of doing it.

And let's be honest, it's those moments which make it a classic.

So what's the skinny from the scene?

Yeah, OK mate, I think that's utterly cynical and a fundamental misreading of the situation. then explain.

I suppose it's fine as long as there are good people on teh way in from outside, or up from 'below' to take the places of the good guys.

I don't tend to use wireless for anything significant A bit of radio streaming in the garden, now it's coming on summer. Surely there must be some things to look for?

I've decided that given the mixed reviews on DA2, and the way the DRM on DA1 made me feel like a pervert in a spotlight, I'm not buying the bastard. Back off out to do some hill spazzing.

If I wanted to present it as fact I would have referenced it. But since this is a Sunday I am content - as I thought we usually were - to work largely with opinion. But I can see I've hit your buttons by calling you on this fantasy approach, so let's to it! 1. I have read the material you presented. Since in general I find your topics interesting. 2. I didn't see the bit about children's courts. But how is such a court to be enforced if not by a teacher? I'm not being defeatist here, either, as I've been sponsor of a UK anti-bullying charity for many years. I just happen to feel that directed aid and assistance case by case is the answer, not risky social experimentation. Oh, and I've also worked as a teacher in a high school, if that carries any weight. 3. Since you claim to have already done the research perhaps you would enlighten me by pointing out what the alternatives are, and or why my logic is so clearly faulty. 4. Don't patronise me by talking about Lev Vygotsky. You've obviously forgotten that I'm a formally qualified psychologist. And unfortunately for you, Vygostky is probably my favourite pre-war Russian after Tukhachevskii. I've been applying his principles in my work ever since reading them. What precisely are you waffling about him for in this context? 5. You suggest there's something wrong with society, but I put it to you that it's far more likely to be something 'wrong' with the human brain. Many of the formal sciences, those with multifold rules, and particularly those involving the storage and manipulation of large data arrays - such as chess - show an enormously strong correlation between practice/repetition and functional expertise. I don't have access to a library on a Sunday, so I'll have to go to a rather out of date edition of 'Cognitive Psychology' by MW Eysenck. Look in the index under expert. ~~ It is all very well and laudable to be in favour of fun. But if I am correct and fun can only go so far, then one may be in fact perpetrating a form of serious neglect on children by failing to discipline them. And that's before one considers the ghastly prospect of releasing kids who think they can do whatever they like when they like into a collaborative workspace. This kind of gibberish is mere mood music for the self-indulgent: It's all very well for creative thought leaders, but you can't man an entire economy with arseholes mucking about.

Everyone's going to be in favour of a no fly zone until we accidentally - and inevitably - hit some residential civilian target. I utterly fail to see why we should risk pilots taking part in an action which will be abandoned long before it does any good just so Independent readers can ignore the fundamental contradictions in their worldview.

Strangely enough I was discussing this theme last night with some teachers and parents. Kids may be designed to learn, but they are also designed to be total horros to one another. Put enough together and you get social pressures and bullying etc which totally outweigh any influence from the teachers. The only counter to this is either general discipline, or massive surveillance. Massive surveillance is unhealthy, IMO, because it teaches kids to run to teacher every time anything goes awry. This leaves discipline, and funnily enough 'hard' subjects like maths and physics can ONLY be taought by disciplined endeavour. There's no fun way to force a kid through the thousand or so iterations of equations necessary until they begin to make intuitive sense. I know that makes me sound a bit Benito Mussolini, but I beg you to attack the substance of my logic, not the tone.

Ron Perlman is great. Don't knock Ron Perlman.