Comments on: A warm snap http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/ once were journalists Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:22:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Tom http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/comment-page-1/#comment-155 Tom Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:44:53 +0000 http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/#comment-155 On the subject of Daily Mail bashing, this one's a wonder (http://tinyurl.com/ywgc9l): Headline: "Revealed: Islamist extremists have penetrated the heart of Britain" Lede: "Islamist extremists have infiltrated Government and key public utilities to pass sensitive information to terrorists, the security services have warned." First actual example of said infiltration: "A terrorist jailed for his involvement in a bomb attack on the Paris Metro later came to England and got a job as a traffic warden." A traffic warden, no less. Surely the only solution is to send Richard Littlejohn down to the white cliffs of Dover with a basket full of bulldogs to hurl at the swarming jihadist armies. On the subject of Daily Mail bashing, this one’s a wonder (http://tinyurl.com/ywgc9l):

Headline: “Revealed: Islamist extremists have penetrated the heart of Britain”
Lede: “Islamist extremists have infiltrated Government and key public utilities to pass sensitive information to terrorists, the security services have warned.”
First actual example of said infiltration: “A terrorist jailed for his involvement in a bomb attack on the Paris Metro later came to England and got a job as a traffic warden.”

A traffic warden, no less. Surely the only solution is to send Richard Littlejohn down to the white cliffs of Dover with a basket full of bulldogs to hurl at the swarming jihadist armies.

]]> By: Christopher Phin http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/comment-page-1/#comment-154 Christopher Phin Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:11:46 +0000 http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/#comment-154 Ahhhhhh. I see. The more charitable part of me remembers those times when I've had to simplify a factoid in order either to make it fit or to ensure that I don't get sidetracked by technicalities, but then the rest of me thinks "yeah, but this is the Daily Mail; screw empathy." Yes, I'm well, thanks. Taking an impromptu day off tomorrow which will be all kinds of wonderful. You? Ahhhhhh. I see. The more charitable part of me remembers those times when I’ve had to simplify a factoid in order either to make it fit or to ensure that I don’t get sidetracked by technicalities, but then the rest of me thinks “yeah, but this is the Daily Mail; screw empathy.”

Yes, I’m well, thanks. Taking an impromptu day off tomorrow which will be all kinds of wonderful. You?

]]> By: handolio http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/comment-page-1/#comment-151 handolio Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:58:21 +0000 http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/#comment-151 Sorry, should learn to explain my pedantic outbursts better: Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy contained within matter. The scale starts at zero degrees kelvin, "absolute zero", a theoretical state at which matter has no kinetic energy. It's minus 273.15 degrees Celsius, thus the 8 degree Celsius average temperature referred to in the article is technically 281.15 kelvin. Because the scale doesn't start at zero degrees Celsius, but instead at zero kelvin, a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius can't accurately be said to be TWICE, or even twice, a temperature of 8 degrees Celsius. It's actually 289.15 kelvin - a much less impressive 3% warmer. Nitpicking, I admit, but something a journalist should understand, no? There's <a href="http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58415.html" rel="nofollow">a better and fuller explanation here</a>, science fans. Hope you're well, by the way? Sorry, should learn to explain my pedantic outbursts better:

Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy contained within matter. The scale starts at zero degrees kelvin, “absolute zero”, a theoretical state at which matter has no kinetic energy. It’s minus 273.15 degrees Celsius, thus the 8 degree Celsius average temperature referred to in the article is technically 281.15 kelvin.

Because the scale doesn’t start at zero degrees Celsius, but instead at zero kelvin, a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius can’t accurately be said to be TWICE, or even twice, a temperature of 8 degrees Celsius. It’s actually 289.15 kelvin - a much less impressive 3% warmer.

Nitpicking, I admit, but something a journalist should understand, no? There’s a better and fuller explanation here, science fans.

Hope you’re well, by the way?

]]> By: Christopher Phin http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/comment-page-1/#comment-150 Christopher Phin Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:33:56 +0000 http://blog.hackbash.com/2008/02/11/a-warm-snap/#comment-150 Me confused. Had I not known better, I'd have written than 16 is 'twice eight', too. Why is this not the case? (I can't think of a way of writing this that doesn't sound churlish and petulant. I don't mean it to be; I'm genuinely interested to know what's special about the temperature scale.) Me confused. Had I not known better, I’d have written than 16 is ‘twice eight’, too. Why is this not the case? (I can’t think of a way of writing this that doesn’t sound churlish and petulant. I don’t mean it to be; I’m genuinely interested to know what’s special about the temperature scale.)

]]>