Archive for October, 2006
Weapons of Mass Destruction
someone questioning the wisdom of those with
We live in a world where some have and some have not. Those without want the lifestyle of those with and this creates tensions. Should we share all technology with everyone (for a price of course or economies would collapse) or should we not? Two current examples are the nuclear missiles (ie WMD) or nuclear power stations.
11 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
Provide common sense...
Attitude!
Is this a little harsh we are asked?
The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, and this is a feeling that I have always cultivated. Oscar Wilde
One pearl of wisdom on “Attitude!”
-
Consultant G Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 9:28 amIt does sound harsh. Within our field of expertise, I would suggest that it is not common sense to insult everyone around you. I would suggest though that anyone who thinks like that is actually quite insecure. However, we are a common sense consultancy, and do not do moral debates, philosophy or psychology. Of course, we are also always correct.
Provide common sense...
Performance related pay
Someone in Ireland asks
Is it common sense to listen to weather forecasts, when the trusty forecaster spouting on has not a clue, and cares less! All too often forecasts are woefully inaccurate. I think weather forecasters should have performance related pay to make them take more of an interest!
10 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Performance related pay”
-
October 24th, 2006 at 2:27 pmGood call on performance related pay. I always think the best weather forecast is the one you make when you look out the window. IF you are in the UK, look to the west as this is where most weather systems come from. However, check the clouds and if they are moving from the east, then look east. Beyond that, keep an eye on the isobar charts on the met office web site.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 2:34 pmThe BBC has done its best to hide the isobar charts but they are still on the site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/pressure/. As Con G says the best way to predict the weather is not to push it too far and so looking out the window should give you 10mins of very accurate forecast. My grandfather who was a great man said that the most we could ever hope for is 48hrs in advance and even then we would require to take into account so many variables a computer (they were not that great in his day) would have to take up the whole of edinburgh.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pmAs you are in the British Isles the best way of predicting tomorrow’s weather is to say that it will be the same as today. This will be correct the majority of the time. If you are in Spain in summer this will be correct almost 100% of the time.
I should point out that describing the forecaster as “trusty” and then stating that they have “not a clue” and “cares less” is self-contradictory. Either the forecaster is “trusty” and you believe what they predict and it is accurate or they are not “trusty”.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 3:41 pmRusty more like. I have to agree I rarely get accurate information from the weather men, but I guess that’s only to be expected when you consult some wacky 80’s pop dance duo about meteorological events.
Perhaps we should set up a local alternative forecasting system. Consultant L is the most westerly and could inform upon systems coming in that direction. While I could advise on any systems approaching from Fife and the north east. However, I’d have to disagree with a performance related pay scheme for such a system, as Consultant L would make more than me due to his westerly location and therefore more frequent forecasts.
Consultant K, being of a central position, of course has no information of any significance to add whatsoever. Not that any forecast makes a difference to him as we all know that the locals in his neighbourhood wear tweed, barbour jackets and red slacks no matter what the weather.
Consultant G, on the other hand, can keep his forecast to himself as we have no desire to know how much better the weather is in Italy.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pmPerhaps it was a typing error, and our customer meant rusty ?
In the UK, there is a 75 % chance roughly that the weather will be the same from one day to the next.
The best info for the UK can be found at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/charts/index.htmlOops - looks like rain and snow in the Alps then.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 3:54 pmI still think there is potential for a website which tells people the weather they want to hear. Sod relying on forecasts and just have a site that gives them sunshine if they are going to be outside (or rain if they are to be working). Positive mental attitude may just change the weather anyway!
-
October 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThat idea really lacks common sense I’m afraid.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 5:40 pmI agree but on the other hand it would make folk happy and may make our fortune
-
October 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pmIf you examine weather systems (isobar charts), rather weather phenomenon (rain, sun, cloud), the forecasts become much more tangible. You only need a very basic understanding of weather systems to interpret such charts.
Unfortunately most television weather broadcasts are being dumbed down into phenomenon and are ignoring the isobar charts. I refer you to my collegues internet sites above.
-
October 25th, 2006 at 3:46 pmi think you’ll find that trusty was typed in an ironic manner - if you will. I myself use a barometer which gives very good indications of upcoming weather changes, roughly about 12 hours ahead of their happening, but I do find it annoying that these so-called trained professionals face so little in the way of a backlash against their dozy and oft erroneous sooth-saying. I’d hope that they are all regularly pasted with fast food outlet drinks, shakes and half-eaten food remains like in “The Weather Man” starring Mr Nicholas Cage.
Consultant K’s idea of telling them what they want to hear is currently in use by a weather man on telly over here who hates telling folk its going to rain, so he always says its going to be sunny - i’d like to sloosh him with a big strawberry shake - Gotcha ya langer!
Provide common sense...
Space to Store
A farmer asks
I need to build a shed big enough to keep 600tonnes of fertiliser dry. How big should it be and are there any factors I should take into account?
2 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Space to Store”
-
October 20th, 2006 at 7:10 pmMy suggestion would be to firstly work out the cubic volume of one tonne of fertiliser and then get back to us.
Otherwise you’d be as well asking us how big a barn you need for 600 tonnes of polystyrene, or 600 tonnes of lead. Use your common sense if you will!
-
October 21st, 2006 at 6:08 pmwell the common sense answer is that it should be big enough or your fertilizer will get wet!
Provide common sense...
Going in circles
A jogger asks
While out and about on my run, I often spot the truly overweight jogging along (well moving at least). Can you please design outfits for them to wear!
6 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Going in circles”
-
October 19th, 2006 at 2:25 pmSorry, I really don’t care about that one. Anyone else?
-
October 19th, 2006 at 3:02 pmThe question should really be “Is jogging common sense?” and the answer has to be NO!!! Humans ain’t built for it - we was designed to walk a lot - so stop jogging and start walking and yer knees will thank you for it!
-
October 19th, 2006 at 3:03 pmwhen i say “we” obviously i mean “you” cos I’m a sealion - when did you last see a sealion jogging?
-
October 19th, 2006 at 3:05 pmthere’s a flurry of google-ads for jogging strollers come up now - there was a lemonheads song called rockin’ stroll was there not? quite good as I recall
-
October 19th, 2006 at 4:06 pmJogging is great you, you just have to make sure that you have decent trainers, don’t run all the time on tarmac and also that you get to the point where you become addicted to it! Sadly most folk just do it every so often and so don’t get that buzz, remain over weight and look shit in lycra (as most folk do but know it and therefore don’t wear it).
Yeh the lemonheads did - and it was not that great
-
October 19th, 2006 at 5:46 pmGetting back to the question in hand. What should tubby joggers wear?
Well I should think they wear a great deal of trainer rubber and considerably more tarmac than you or I.
Provide common sense...
Body Mass Indexing
From a slightly chubby person
Having just looked at the BBC site on healthy living I am surprised to find out that I am overweight. Is it right to use such a broad brush approach to being over (or under) weight. Also how do you score?
5 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Body Mass Indexing”
-
October 12th, 2006 at 4:27 pmI am happy to say that I only come in at overweight (29.04) but you are very right in suggesting that BMI does not take any account of muscle/fat ratios. Sadly we are a nation of people who will either watch the scales and become underweight or moan about the fact that toilet seats are not made for 20stone folk!
-
October 12th, 2006 at 5:02 pmThat index is strange. I am by no means lardy, but my index (23.77) puts me towards the upper end of the scale that is healthy (18.5 - 25). I would have placed myself right in the middle, or perhaps heading towards the underweight end. Different combinations show that I would have to be 3 stones lighter to be underweight. Being 3 stone lighter would equate to blowing away in the wind. Simply, I do not trust this information.
-
October 12th, 2006 at 6:54 pmI find it impeccable, giving me a perfect (20.28). It is obvious to me that when devising such a system they looked to perfect specimans such as myself upon which to base the fulcrum for their scale. Any rational person need only take a glance at somebody like me, apply common sense and decide, yes, that’s what we should all be like. I congratulate them on their flawless system.
-
October 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI am ‘healthy’ even if a little scrawny at 19.14. Only 0.64 units away from underweight.
Must eat more seal.
-
October 17th, 2006 at 1:26 pmso conclude this fairly tedious section. None of us are too bad but on the other hand we all agree the standard is more than a little simplistic
right - next subject!
Provide common sense...
whether to quantify my quality, or qualify my quantity
A topic from the previous thread:
Which is more important, quality or quantity ? I would value the comments of you esteemed consultants (and other contributors) on this. I previously believed that quantity was of greatest importance, but I can see now how important quality is. This is an important topic applying to many areas of life (e.g. Scotland’s huge but v. poor service industry, Bruichladdich’s small scale production of top quality whisky (www.bruichladdich.com), Leica’s small production of top quality cameras and other optical devices (www.leica-camera.com), fat useless Americans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183086.stm) and the top quality of Michael Craiks paintings (www.michaelcraik.com).
Should I quantify my quality, or qualify my quantity ?
8 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “whether to quantify my quality, or qualify my quantity”
-
October 11th, 2006 at 4:23 pmwell rare american warblers turning up on our shores could be considered quality birds, while squillions of say dunnocks are certainly quantity but are v dull. So I go for quality every time! And indeed did on monday afternoon!
-
October 11th, 2006 at 4:37 pmWho has every heard of a box of quantity street chocolates either ?
-
October 11th, 2006 at 5:57 pmIronic that really as their quantity seems to be of more concern to the manufacturer than the quality. Perhaps the ccc should recommend a rebranding to Quantity Street. Personally there’s far too many of the golden penny one’s for my liking.
Anyway, is it necessarily the case that the two should be completely at odds. Surely if we have a quality item produced in large quantities then everyone is a winner. As an example I cite Innes and Gunn Beer. Once a quality item produced in small quantities, hard to come by. Yet now produced in vast quantities and widely available, and as far as I can discern, with no loss whatsoever of quality.
-
October 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmI do like the idea of Quantity Assessment though
-
October 11th, 2006 at 6:00 pmI’m off now to watch Scotland produce one quality goal against the Ukraine followed by an extremely high quantity of quality defending.
-
October 12th, 2006 at 8:13 amShame Scotland did not ask you what strategy to adopt – they went for high quantity, low quality defence, and no quality or quantity in attack. Oh well, at least they can beat France.
-
October 12th, 2006 at 11:09 amHmmm, yes, perhaps that wasn’t what one might call a statement based upon common sense.
-
October 24th, 2006 at 3:18 pmIt should be realised that there is no discernible link between Scottish football and Common Sense. The behaviour of Mr Romanov at Hearts is a case in point.
However to get back to the original point, there are a number of other factors which come into play in the quality vs. quantity debate. For example the desirability of an item may decline in line with increasing quantity despite, as Consultant M mentions, no decrease in quality. This is perfectly shown by Burberry, once seen gracing the bodies of aristos and the rich, now seen covering neds and Big Brother contestants.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
A pedantic point, but as far physicists know, mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. Therefore, you will never be able to find a weapon of mass destruction.
October 25th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
That is not pedantry but miss understanding for comic effect.
There are a number of definitions for mass most of which fit with weapons of mass destruction
1. A unified body of matter with no specific shape: a mass of clay.
2. A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity: “Take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates” (Herman Melville).
3. A large but nonspecific amount or number: a mass of bruises.
4. A lump or aggregate of coherent material: a cancerous mass.
5. The principal part; the majority: the mass of the continent.
6. The physical volume or bulk of a solid body.
7. (Abbr. m) Physics. A property of matter equal to the measure of an object’s resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.
8. An area of unified light, shade, or color in a painting.
9. Pharmacology. A thick, pasty mixture containing drugs from which pills are formed.
10. masses The body of common people or people of low socioeconomic status: “Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (Emma Lazarus).
October 25th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
It is also a central part of worship in the Catholic religion. Common sense may well suggest that the destruction of all forms of organised religions would be a great leap forward in solving many of the World’s problems..
October 25th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
socks on sale on all yer google-ads - must be the sockular issues that came up last week!
October 25th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Wonder if we will get a google ad for weapons of mass descruction for sale
October 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
None on mass distraction(sp), all on peace. How dull I would like the ebay or the amazon one.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:25 am
The selective possession of WMDs is tricky in terms of common sense. I think common sense suggests that either no one should have them or everyone should have them. Since mutual destruction is almost guaranteed if two sides of a conflict use them, then the chances are no one will ever use them first. Therefore, why spend millions on these systems, when fake weapons made of cardboards could be paraded inform of the generals instead. However, there may be a case for a central organisation having the power generally the model that the police can have guns but public can’t works pretty well (okay, lets forget about USA here). However, such a possessor would have to be respected and effective, something which the UN is not.
In terms of technology, then there is no reason why everyone cannot have the best systems, providing they can afford them, and can run them safely and appropriately. With the dangers inherent in many of these systems, safety (including prevention of pollution and use of material for weapons manufacture) is essential. This is where egalitarian common sense breaks down, because politics and self interest takes over, as does human nature – ie safety procedures not followed or broken completely, as at Chernobyl.
Therefore, while common sense works in many situations, it is not applicable to world politics because it is too close to an idealism, and does not withstand corruption and egos and the other silliness associated with politics.
We first need to re-define world politics so that it operates on a common sense basis. Perhaps some sensible world leaders would like to contact us and give us the job ?
October 26th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
shurely the fact that you are a world leader means you have no common sense - bet you get no takers!
October 26th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
No, I am the world leader pretend, I sit at my table and wage war on myself. It seems like it’s all, it’s all for nothing. I know the barricades, and I know the mortar in the wall breaks. I recognize the weapons, I used them well.
October 26th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
very good mr stipe, we’ll let you know - NEXT….
October 27th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
The world leader pretend reminds me of R.E.M.’s “Green” album, or I am wrong?
In my humble opinion, nuclear power stations are common sense. Or maybe I should say, perfectly working nuclear power stations…
WMD are common sense, because while representing a mutual menace for all players, they just stop the game and cut to zero the power of each other player. So nobody can harm nobody.
I agree with consultant g: mass cannot be destroyed. Of course, in the sense of physicists.