THE solution to global warming has turned up in Feedback’s spam filter. Stephen Bassett, director of the Paradigm Research Group, has written an open letter to climate activist Al Gore, copying the letter all over the place – which is why our computer intercepted it as spam.
Bassett claims the US already has the technology for dealing with the climate problem but is keeping it secret. Do you detect the whiff of a conspiracy theory? How right you are. “It was derived from the energy and propulsion systems of crashed vehicles of extraterrestrial origin,” Bassett asserts. US government officials have kept it under wraps for six decades, he writes, because “it is reserved for weaponry, not for global warming response”. Ah, yes. Of course.
Advertisement
A RARE but welcome example of marketing modesty: Ian Chapple’s son’s ski trousers include a tag promoting the Recco Avalanche Rescue System, which, Chapple says, appears to be some sort of passive transponder device. The tag explains: “The Recco Avalanche Rescue system utilises advanced radar technology to make a quick location of an avalanche victim possible… The Recco system consists of two parts, the reflectors, which are integrated into apparel, boots and helmets, and the search equipment, which is operated by the rescue team at the ski resort… The Recco avalanche rescue system does not prevent avalanches.”
ACCOUNTANTS are used to dealing with the last penny, regardless of how unimportant it is. So perhaps Peter Brady shouldn’t have been too surprised by the devotion to precision that he came across in the instructions for filling out a US Internal Revenue Service taxation form.
“The time needed to complete this form will vary depending on individual circumstances. The estimated average time is: record keeping, 5 hours 58 minutes; learning about the law or the form, 3 hours 46 minutes; preparing and sending the form to IRS, 4 hours 2 minutes.”
We would love to know how these “estimates” were arrived at.
WE CALLED a halt to religious mondegreens – misremembered religious phrases that still make an incongruous kind of sense (2 December 2006) – but couldn’t resist the one Mary Maher has told us about. A friend’s daughter, she says, recently started at a denominational school in Brisbane, Australia. Maher asked her what was different about it. She said that they say prayers in the morning and elaborated by reciting the one she had just learned: “Our Father which art in heaven, Allah be thy name.”
FROM the department of computer rage: Peter Brennan was working with the latest version of Adobe’s Dreamweaver. When he tried to use the “recent files” list to open a file not available on his network, a box popped up saying “No error occurred”. The only other thing on the box was a button saying “OK”. He pressed it and the box disappeared, but the file he wanted didn’t open. He tried to open the file again and the same thing happened. Whereupon he took out a gun and shot his computer.
No, he didn’t – but we wouldn’t blame him if he had.
“In what appears to be a special provision for the obese, a sign by the entrance of Derek Woodroffe’s local home improvement store proclaims: “Larger customer parking behind the store””
THE blurb about the author on the back of David Rothery’s “excellent” book, Teach Yourself Geology, states: “David Rothery is a senior lecturer at the Open University who has done geological research in many parts of the world, and even on some other planets.”
“Gets around a bit, doesn’t he?” comments Tim Walsh.
UNIVERSAL children’s brick sets on sale at have many interesting features, including “soluble water”. Chris Rogers wishes they’d market this separately: “So useful to take on journeys. If you are thirsty all you need is to dissolve some soluble water in… er…”
FINALLY, it is not often that we feel it appropriate to take issue with our readers, but just this once we find ourselves compelled to do so. In the 20 January issue we reported the University of Oxford’s online advice that “Colleges receive around four well-qualified applicants per place, so on average two thirds of those interviewed cannot be offered a place”. We went on to endorse Robert Sheehan’s suggestion that the maths in this statement is flawed.
A number of readers have written in to defend Oxford, contending, for example, that the numbers will work perfectly well “if a quarter of the applicants decide not to turn up for the interview”. This is true – and we could add that the numbers would also work perfectly well if Oxford scouts were sent out to dispose of a quarter of the applicants in acid baths. However, neither these nor any other possible explanations appear in the statement from the university that we quoted. Without them it is, we insist, flawed.
