I was stranded on a broken down train for three hours last night, and managed to get a heck of a lot of writing done... four hours of battery life in my Powerbook, using only Pages the whole time. It was wonderful!
Why can't the British run a railway service that isn't a joke, FFS...?
Tim
Tim Gowen wrote:
I was stranded on a broken down train for three hours last night, and managed to get a heck of a lot of writing done... four hours of battery life in my Powerbook, using only Pages the whole time. It was wonderful!
Why can't the British run a railway service that isn't a joke, FFS...?
For "railway service" you could substitute pretty much anything. It sems that the only things that the British excel at these days are binge drinking and football violence (have I missed anything ?).
Paul
On 2005-10-21 10:08:06 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid said:
For "railway service" you could substitute pretty much anything. It sems that the only things that the British excel at these days are binge drinking and football violence (have I missed anything ?).
Yes. Self-loathing and pointless negativity.
Cheers, Ian
Ian McCall wrote:
On 2005-10-21 10:08:06 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid said:
For "railway service" you could substitute pretty much anything. It sems that the only things that the British excel at these days are binge drinking and football violence (have I missed anything ?).
Yes. Self-loathing and pointless negativity.
Perhaps that's just the cause of the world-class binge drinking and violence ?
Paul
On 2005-10-21 15:06:12 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid said:
Ian McCall wrote:
On 2005-10-21 10:08:06 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid said:
For "railway service" you could substitute pretty much anything. It sems that the only things that the British excel at these days are binge drinking and football violence (have I missed anything ?).
Yes. Self-loathing and pointless negativity.
Perhaps that's just the cause of the world-class binge drinking and violence ?
Thing is you see, I'm British. So is my family, and so are the majority of my friends. They're not football hooligans, and they're not world-class binge drinkers either. I suspect you're British too, and I doubt you fit into any of the alleged skills mentioned. A majority of other people on this group are British as well, and they don't fit the profile either. I'll bet they have a majority of British friends as well, and I'll bet -they- don't fit the profile either.
I wouldn't have put Britain top for sporting violence for many years, if ever. Nor for drinking either, though it's certainly present. Nor smoking. Nor do I believe any of this to be new, you could nip back to Hogarth to see scenes of debauchery that would put the current lot to shame.
What I -do- think is new is the continual putting down of the whole country merely because of the actions of its scum. Every country has scum, but not every country seems to get judged by them. The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection. It's madness - the majority of Britain is as fine as the majority of most other places.
Cheers, Ian
Ian McCall ian@redacted.invalid wrote:
The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection.
No, it's because they had public school educations.
Daniele
Ian McCall wrote:
Thing is you see, I'm British. So is my family, and so are the majority of my friends. They're not football hooligans, and they're not world-class binge drinkers either. I suspect you're British too, and I doubt you fit into any of the alleged skills mentioned. A majority of other people on this group are British as well, and they don't fit the profile either. I'll bet they have a majority of British friends as well, and I'll bet -they- don't fit the profile either.
I wouldn't have put Britain top for sporting violence for many years, if ever. Nor for drinking either, though it's certainly present. Nor smoking. Nor do I believe any of this to be new, you could nip back to Hogarth to see scenes of debauchery that would put the current lot to shame.
What I -do- think is new is the continual putting down of the whole country merely because of the actions of its scum. Every country has scum, but not every country seems to get judged by them. The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection. It's madness - the majority of Britain is as fine as the majority of most other places.
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates. We've succesfully exported football violence to other countries but I believe we're still the world leader in this area too.
It wouldn't be so bad if the UK also excelled in some other more positive areas, but the only UK-related success stories seem to involve people who were born in the UK but who could only achieve success by emigrating (e.g. Jonathan Ive, to bring the thread back on topic).
Paul
In article 1h4slj1.3gxeux1pcv8ifN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid (D.M. Procida) wrote:
Ian McCall ian@redacted.invalid wrote:
The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection.
No, it's because they had public school educations.
What has this to do with anything?
-- tim
In article tim.streater-4CAB1D.17451821102005@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater tim.streater@redacted.invalid wrote:
The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection.
No, it's because they had public school educations.
What has this to do with anything?
If you'd had a public school education, you'd know.
-- Richard
In article djb63u$cbu$1@redacted.invalid, richard@redacted.invalid (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article tim.streater-4CAB1D.17451821102005@redacted.invalid, Tim Streater tim.streater@redacted.invalid wrote:
The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection.
No, it's because they had public school educations.
What has this to do with anything?
If you'd had a public school education, you'd know.
I think you're just 50 years behind the times.
-- tim
In article tim.streater-4CAB1D.17451821102005@redacted.invalid tim.streater@redacted.invalid "Tim Streater" writes:
In article 1h4slj1.3gxeux1pcv8ifN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid (D.M. Procida) wrote:
Ian McCall ian@redacted.invalid wrote:
The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection.
No, it's because they had public school educations.
What has this to do with anything?
One doesn't wish to brag; the lower orders might become envious.
To keep this OT... Poorly understood groups tend to be judged by their prominent members, for good or ill. Say a religious group, previously only a quaint rumour, is heard to have done X, then of course all members of that group do X: regularly; as a tenet of faith and culture. And suppose British "fans" sully our national name, then foreigners whose understanding of Britain stops at the names of a few products and dubbed episodes of Monty Python may accept that version of us as true and sufficient. And then there is this - are foreigners alone in their hazy understanding of us? How well do we know ourselves? Is that self-knowledge improving?
(Sorry, that didn't have much to do with flagellation.)Andrew Stephenson
In message 4359195b$0$355$da0feed9@redacted.invalid Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:37:44 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid
wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league
tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
Gareth
On 2005-10-21 19:19:29 +0100, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid said:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:37:44 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
Or Turkey for the football violence? Or, and the name escapes me, but there are two Arab teams that require the army to be stationed as well. I'm not a football fan so can't name them, but definitely remember seeing this a while ago.
Cheers, Ian
On 21/10/05 19:19, in article op.sy0c6rr4ssbg48@redacted.invalid, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
Ian McCall wrote:
Thing is you see, I'm British. So is my family, and so are the majority of my friends. They're not football hooligans, and they're not world-class binge drinkers either. I suspect you're British too, and I doubt you fit into any of the alleged skills mentioned. A majority of other people on this group are British as well, and they don't fit the profile either. I'll bet they have a majority of British friends as well, and I'll bet -they- don't fit the profile either.
I wouldn't have put Britain top for sporting violence for many years, if ever. Nor for drinking either, though it's certainly present. Nor smoking. Nor do I believe any of this to be new, you could nip back to Hogarth to see scenes of debauchery that would put the current lot to shame.
What I -do- think is new is the continual putting down of the whole country merely because of the actions of its scum. Every country has scum, but not every country seems to get judged by them. The British seem relentlessly obsessed with flagellation simply because not everyone is perfection. It's madness - the majority of Britain is as fine as the majority of most other places.
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
I think you will find it isn't - it just seems that way when you walk down a street with a pub in it late at night
http://www.ias.org.uk/factsheets/harm-ukeu.pdf
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 21/10/05 19:19, in article op.sy0c6rr4ssbg48@redacted.invalid, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
And listening to bjork all day
Woody usenet@redacted.invalid wrote:
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
And listening to bjork all day
And having to eat that rotten shark's meat that has been pissed on and kept in a hole in the ground.
Daniele
On 21/10/05 21:19, in article 1h4sw0k.1twg2ifg7meovN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, "D.M. Procida" real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
And listening to bjork all day
And having to eat that rotten shark's meat that has been pissed on and kept in a hole in the ground.
Thought that was the Swedish with fermented herring?
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 21/10/05 21:19, in article 1h4sw0k.1twg2ifg7meovN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, "D.M. Procida" real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
And listening to bjork all day
And having to eat that rotten shark's meat that has been pissed on and kept in a hole in the ground.
Thought that was the Swedish with fermented herring?
Easy to mistake for bjork
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 21/10/05 19:19, in article op.sy0c6rr4ssbg48@redacted.invalid, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism. Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 4359195b$0$355$da0feed9@redacted.invalid Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
The Nordic nations (Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland) drink the least amount of alcohol of all nations in Europe, much less than the UK drinks.
sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
The Nordic nations (Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland) drink the least amount of alcohol of all nations in Europe, much less than the UK drinks.
Though it doesn't mean that they do or don't have alcohol-related problems.
Daniele
On 21/10/05 21:59, in article 1129928381.521852.81090@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism. Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
You're seriously telling me Iceland has more sunshine in the winter? I'd love to have that explained concisely. And it be very surprised if Iceland has more than 1-2% woodland coverage. Probably much less.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4737743.stm
"On the other hand, trees grow very slowly in the Icelandic climate. So slowly that after a century of tree planting, the locals tell you that if you do get lost in an Icelandic forest all you have to do is stand up."
I'm told the country is very beautiful: but I get miserable in an English winter due to short days, so Iceland would drive me to drink very quickly.
Most Scandinavian governments have reduced their alcohol abuse problems by the simple tactic of making it too expensive to get pissed.
In message 3rsri6Flb550U1@redacted.invalid Ian McCall ian@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 2005-10-21 19:19:29 +0100, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid said:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:37:44 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
Or Turkey for the football violence? Or, and the name escapes me, but there are two Arab teams that require the army to be stationed as well. I'm not a football fan so can't name them, but definitely remember seeing this a while ago.
Just about anywhere in South America, when Boca play River Plate the army keeps its collective head down.
In message 1129928601.560651.66170@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 4359195b$0$355$da0feed9@redacted.invalid Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
The Nordic nations (Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland) drink the least amount of alcohol of all nations in Europe, much less than the UK drinks.
Try the alcoholism rates...
sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 21/10/05 19:19, in article op.sy0c6rr4ssbg48@redacted.invalid, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism.
This is true
Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
Do you mean:
- Iceland has more sunlight than the 3 hours you are sugesting or
- Iceland has more sunlight than the UK?
Reykjavik has more sunlight than the 3 hours (but not more than the UK), but north of there you get to a time where there is no light at all, so he is right either way
Still, nice to see a .is address - that is the first one I have seen
Woody usenet@redacted.invalid wrote:
- Iceland has more sunlight than the 3 hours you are sugesting or
- Iceland has more sunlight than the UK?
Reykjavik has more sunlight than the 3 hours (but not more than the UK), but north of there you get to a time where there is no light at all, so he is right either way
Hours of sunlight is not the same as hours of daylight. No use having daylight hours in winter if it's overcast and not sunny.
Daniele
In message 3rsc2pFktc5lU1@redacted.invalid, Ian McCall ian@redacted.invalid writes [snip]
What I -do- think is new is the continual putting down of the whole country merely because of the actions of its scum. Every country has scum, but not every country seems to get judged by them.
We might judge ourselves by the actions of our scum but that doesn't mean other countries see that side of us. While we're worrying about binge-drinking chavs spreading STDs as widely as possible, I'm sure that Arabs are more worried about us supporting the US in Iraq.
Regards,
Woody usenet@redacted.invalid wrote:
And listening to bjork all day
Careful. You are speaking of a rare genius and one of the many women I love.
On 2005-10-21 23:38:21 +0100, Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid said:
We might judge ourselves by the actions of our scum but that doesn't mean other countries see that side of us.
Yeah, but we're wandering off the original point. The question was "is there anything else that Britain excels at?", with a list of nothing but negative traits being given as examples of what 'we' -do- excel at. Not a question of the politics etc., question of self-image.
Cheers, Ian
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 21/10/05 21:59, in article 1129928381.521852.81090@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism. Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
You're seriously telling me Iceland has more sunshine in the winter?
No, I am not, I am talking about the whole year, you did not mention winter, you said that Iceland only had 3 hours of sunlight. The longest day in the summer has 21 hours of daylight and the shortest around 5 hours (+2 hours of twilight) and it is only the last weeks of december and early january that have so short days.
On 21/10/2005 7:01 PM, in article 1129939300.235830.310310@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 21/10/05 21:59, in article 1129928381.521852.81090@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism. Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
You're seriously telling me Iceland has more sunshine in the winter?
No, I am not, I am talking about the whole year, you did not mention winter, you said that Iceland only had 3 hours of sunlight. The longest day in the summer has 21 hours of daylight and the shortest around 5 hours (+2 hours of twilight) and it is only the last weeks of december and early january that have so short days.
I rather like Iceland. Somewhat strange being able to read the paper by daylight at 3am (summer time of course), but some of the most interesting landscape I've ever seen. Incredible light for photography, along with the combination of volcanism and glaciation makes for a great place to visit. And Icelandic women are stunning - ahem!
I seem to remember Icelandic alcohol being breathtakingly expensive, so if there are alcohol problems, those involved are either very rich or broke - or go quickly from one state to the other.
Woody wrote:
sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 21/10/05 19:19, in article op.sy0c6rr4ssbg48@redacted.invalid, "Gar= eth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international l= eague tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3= hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within = days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism.
This is true
Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
Do you mean:
- Iceland has more sunlight than the 3 hours you are sugesting or
- Iceland has more sunlight than the UK?
Iceland has both more daylight than 3 hours (the shortest day in Reykjav=EDk has around 5 hours and the longest 21 hours) and total daylight hours in the year are greater in Iceland than at least the south of the UK gets (the latitudes 58 to 62N get the greatest amount of daylight total because of the tilt of the earths axis)
Reykjavik has more sunlight than the 3 hours (but not more than the UK), but north of there you get to a time where there is no light at all, so he is right either way
Still, nice to see a .is address - that is the first one I have seen =20 =20 --=20 Woody Alienrat Design Ltd
On 21/10/05 23:35, in article 1h4t2og.5ez14r1jieelrN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, "D.M. Procida" real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
Reykjavik has more sunlight than the 3 hours (but not more than the UK), but north of there you get to a time where there is no light at all, so he is right either way
Hours of sunlight is not the same as hours of daylight. No use having daylight hours in winter if it's overcast and not sunny.
Bollocks. Even an overcast day is massively more bright than living under crappy electric lights.
On 22/10/05 01:01, in article 1129939300.235830.310310@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism. Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
You're seriously telling me Iceland has more sunshine in the winter?
No, I am not, I am talking about the whole year, you did not mention winter, you said that Iceland only had 3 hours of sunlight. The longest day in the summer has 21 hours of daylight and the shortest around 5 hours (+2 hours of twilight) and it is only the last weeks of december and early january that have so short days.
Yes, I exaggerated, but only slightly. The worlds biggest magma lake is under Yellowstone, your days are 5 hours, and you have some stunted trees despite decades of replanting.
I know my body clock would get so screwed up by the day-length variation I'd be knocking back the spirits in a short space of time. Your mileage may vary.
And find me an Icelandic forest. I need big, tall green things with rustling leaves to make me feel alive.
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
Reykjavik has more sunlight than the 3 hours (but not more than the UK), but north of there you get to a time where there is no light at all, so he is right either way
Hours of sunlight is not the same as hours of daylight. No use having daylight hours in winter if it's overcast and not sunny.
Bollocks. Even an overcast day is massively more bright than living under crappy electric lights.
That's not the question. Every place in the world gets, over the course of the year, equal quantities of daylight, though it's delivered in more equal distributions at the equator than at the poles. Some places are consistently more cloudy than others, and receive less sunlight. This is why Herne Bay in Kent can claim to be the sunniest town in the country, and why Iceland might have more sunlight than Britain.
Daniele
Well this turned into a fun thread, but my Pb panicked when I connected it to my parents' PC; and I installed Mac drivers for their deskjet, and can't find the damn thing in Printer Setup!
Also, when the sun shines through the screen I can see the Apple...!
Tim
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
And find me an Icelandic forest. I need big, tall green things with rustling leaves to make me feel alive.
unhealthy morris dancers?
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bollocks. Even an overcast day is massively more bright than living under crappy electric lights.
Maybe. But if there's snow on the ground and an overcast sky (often happens in Scandoland- don't know about Bjorkland) then even one street light sets up amazing amounts of reverberation between the cloud base and the snow. It's not nearly as dark as it sounds. The killer is when there's no snow- then it all does go black and depressing.
Bonge Boo! wrote:
On 22/10/05 01:01, in article 1129939300.235830.310310@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
No. But sitting on one of the world's largest fucking magma lakes, = 3 hrs sunlight and a complete lack of trees would drive me to drink within= days.
Alcohol consumption is much greater in the UK and the same goes for alcoholism. Iceland has more sunlight and also has plenty of trees, please try and get at least one thing right.
You're seriously telling me Iceland has more sunshine in the winter?
No, I am not, I am talking about the whole year, you did not mention winter, you said that Iceland only had 3 hours of sunlight. The longest day in the summer has 21 hours of daylight and the shortest around 5 hours (+2 hours of twilight) and it is only the last weeks of december and early january that have so short days.
Yes, I exaggerated, but only slightly. The worlds biggest magma lake is under Yellowstone, your days are 5 hours, and you have some stunted trees despite decades of replanting.
I know my body clock would get so screwed up by the day-length variation = I'd be knocking back the spirits in a short space of time. Your mileage may vary.
And find me an Icelandic forest. I need big, tall green things with rustl= ing leaves to make me feel alive.
Check out the Hallormssta=F0ask=F3gur: http://www.ismennt.is/not/jonasg/hallormsstadur/ or:http://www.heimur.is/files/world42c13c2d4b939_05AUSTURLAND%20W.pdf There are other quite extentive woodlands especially in the east and north but also in other parts of Iceland, the highest trees are over 20 meters in height but most of them are somewhat lower.
D=2EM. Procida wrote:
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
Reykjavik has more sunlight than the 3 hours (but not more than the = UK), but north of there you get to a time where there is no light at all,= so he is right either way
Hours of sunlight is not the same as hours of daylight. No use having daylight hours in winter if it's overcast and not sunny.
Bollocks. Even an overcast day is massively more bright than living und= er crappy electric lights.
That's not the question. Every place in the world gets, over the course of the year, equal quantities of daylight, though it's delivered in more equal distributions at the equator than at the poles. Some places are consistently more cloudy than others, and receive less sunlight. This is why Herne Bay in Kent can claim to be the sunniest town in the country, and why Iceland might have more sunlight than Britain.
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth=B4s axis, the area around 60=B0N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator gets much more direct sunlight however.
sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
That's not the question. Every place in the world gets, over the course of the year, equal quantities of daylight, though it's delivered in more equal distributions at the equator than at the poles. Some places are consistently more cloudy than others, and receive less sunlight. This is why Herne Bay in Kent can claim to be the sunniest town in the country, and why Iceland might have more sunlight than Britain.
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth¥s axis, the area around 60 N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator gets much more direct sunlight however.
Really? If that's the case, then 60 S too, I guess. But I can't actually work out how it would make a difference to the total hours of daylight At higher latitudes the shift between day and night is slower than at the equator, where night falls in what seems to be seconds, but I presume that you're playing fair and choosing the mid-point of the transition as the break between day and night for those 60 latitudes.
Daniele
In 3rtatcFlaevkU1@redacted.invalid Ian McCall wrote:
On 2005-10-21 23:38:21 +0100, Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid said:
We might judge ourselves by the actions of our scum but that doesn't mean other countries see that side of us.
Yeah, but we're wandering off the original point. The question was "is there anything else that Britain excels at?", with a list of nothing but negative traits being given as examples of what 'we' -do- excel at. Not a question of the politics etc., question of self-image.
Cheers, Ian
Design c.f Jonathan Ives?
In message 1129982767.650697.21930@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth¥s axis, the area around 60 N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator gets much more direct sunlight however.
Rubbish
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 1129928601.560651.66170@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 4359195b$0$355$da0feed9@redacted.invalid Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
The Nordic nations (Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland) drink the least amount of alcohol of all nations in Europe, much less than the UK drinks.
Try the alcoholism rates...
Yes, I did. Much lower in the Nordic countries than in the UK.
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website: http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 1129982767.650697.21930@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth=B4s axis, the area around 60=B0N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator gets much more direct sunlight however. =20 =20 =20 Rubbish
In what way?
In message 1130003345.083412.170040@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 1129982767.650697.21930@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth¥s axis, the area around 60 N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator gets much more direct sunlight however.
Rubbish
In what way?
In the way of being incorrect. :-)
Over a whole year, every part of the earth's surface gets the same number of hours of daylight.
There's a reasonable explanation here: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html [1]
Regards,
[1] Bonus on-topicness: the site is hosted on a Mac
Bruce Horrocks wrote:
In message 1130003345.083412.170040@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 1129982767.650697.21930@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth=B4s axis,= the area around 60=B0N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator = gets much more direct sunlight however.
Rubbish
In what way?
In the way of being incorrect. :-)
Over a whole year, every part of the earth's surface gets the same number of hours of daylight.
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60=B0 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator. In addition there is a much longer twilight period in the upper latitudes than at the euator. But the equator recieves much more direct sunlight because the sun is much higher on the horizon.
There's a reasonable explanation here: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html [1]
No, how much daylight each latitude receives is not mentioned at all on this page, please read it again.
In article 1130026649.595056.314270@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bruce Horrocks wrote:
In message 1130003345.083412.170040@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 1129982767.650697.21930@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
No, this is not the case, because of the tilt of the earth¥s axis, the area around 60 N gets more daylight than the equator, the equator gets much more direct sunlight however.
Rubbish
In what way?
In the way of being incorrect. :-)
Over a whole year, every part of the earth's surface gets the same number of hours of daylight.
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator. In addition there is a much longer twilight period in the upper latitudes than at the euator. But the equator recieves much more direct sunlight because the sun is much higher on the horizon.
There's a reasonable explanation here: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html [1]
No, how much daylight each latitude receives is not mentioned at all on this page, please read it again.
It seems that it is far more complicated than what's in that link above. Start with the analemma here. http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html Apart from explaining why sunrise and sunset times are not that symmetrical, it would indicate that the Southern hemisphere gets more hours of daylight than the north.
...and then chasing this lot down (and I have not done this carefully yet) http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56478.html seems to show that higher latitudes get more daylight due to twilight refraction.
Weak and piddly daylight it may be, but there is more hours of it.
Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid wrote:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html [1]
[1] Bonus on-topicness: the site is hosted on a Mac
Using Webstar - I didn't realise that was still going.
Elliott Roper nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:
Over a whole year, every part of the earth's surface gets the same number of hours of daylight.
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator. In addition there is a much longer twilight period in the upper latitudes than at the euator.
It seems that it is far more complicated than what's in that link above. Start with the analemma here. http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html Apart from explaining why sunrise and sunset times are not that symmetrical, it would indicate that the Southern hemisphere gets more hours of daylight than the north.
...and then chasing this lot down (and I have not done this carefully yet) http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56478.html seems to show that higher latitudes get more daylight due to twilight refraction.
Weak and piddly daylight it may be, but there is more hours of it.
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle). Of course, intuition is not all it's cracked up to be, and my own intuition also told me that J would be a good choice for a girlfriend, that the string would be strong enough to bear my weight (it was above a concrete patio, too), and that five hours would be plenty of time to get there and back before the tide came in, night fell, and the bears ventured out of the forest.
Daniele
On 23/10/05 09:50, in article 1h4vp06.1au4a95eb77dvN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, "D.M. Procida" real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
Weak and piddly daylight it may be, but there is more hours of it.
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle). Of course, intuition is not all it's cracked up to be, and my own intuition also told me that J would be a good choice for a girlfriend, that the string would be strong enough to bear my weight (it was above a concrete patio, too), and that five hours would be plenty of time to get there and back before the tide came in, night fell, and the bears ventured out of the forest.
I think you'd be wrong. It all depends on rates of rotation, tilt, orbits etc. Dark side of the moon is a real phenomenon.
sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message <1129928601.560651.66170@redacted.invalid googlegroups.com> sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 4359195b$0$355$da0feed9@redacted.invalid Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
The Nordic nations (Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland) drink the least amount of alcohol of all nations in Europe, much less than the UK drinks.
Try the alcoholism rates...
Yes, I did. Much lower in the Nordic countries than in the UK.
OK, now check out the cost of alcohol in those countries, and the government-owned shops with very particular opening hours that you have to buy it from in many of them.
Oh, and they're serious about checking age id as well.
ck
Graeme Wall Graeme@redacted.invalid wrote:
In message 3rsri6Flb550U1@redacted.invalid Ian McCall ian@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 2005-10-21 19:19:29 +0100, "Gareth Slee" ga.slee@redacted.invalid said:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:37:44 +0100, Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
Ever been to Iceland?
Or Turkey for the football violence? Or, and the name escapes me, but there are two Arab teams that require the army to be stationed as well. I'm not a football fan so can't name them, but definitely remember seeing this a while ago.
Just about anywhere in South America, when Boca play River Plate the army keeps its collective head down.
Or in Australia when the ethnic Croat team (Sydney United) plays the ethnic Serbian team (or anyone, really). Of course, the Serbs do violence properly, and like to use automatic weapons and explosives to make their point
Of course, the difference is that the Serbs aren't filled with the same pathetic self-loathing and whingy wishing for some wondrous time when there was no crime of any kind, people left their doors open, purveyors of organised crime were actually top people that everyone loved and were better than the police and everyone had a job. Never mind that that time never actually existed...
ck
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle).
I think you'd be wrong. It all depends on rates of rotation, tilt, orbits etc. Dark side of the moon is a real phenomenon.
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
Daniele
D.M. Procida real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle).
I think you'd be wrong. It all depends on rates of rotation, tilt, orbits etc. Dark side of the moon is a real phenomenon.
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. It's just that its period of revolution around its axis is the same as the period of revolution around the Earth, hence the same side is always facing us.
Jim
D.M. Procida real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle).
I think you'd be wrong. It all depends on rates of rotation, tilt, orbits etc. Dark side of the moon is a real phenomenon.
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
Of course it does, at the same speed as it goes around us.
Jim jim@redacted.invalid wrote:
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. It's just that its period of revolution around its axis is the same as the period of revolution around the Earth, hence the same side is always facing us.
That's the trouble with Usenet, there's always some fucker who's prepared to split a thinner hair than you.
Daniele
On 23/10/05 10:40, in article 1h4vs6b.ja4gt9j4go9jN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, "D.M. Procida" real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle).
I think you'd be wrong. It all depends on rates of rotation, tilt, orbits etc. Dark side of the moon is a real phenomenon.
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
I thought one face of the moon generally faced the earth, hence the other side was dark?
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 23/10/05 10:40, in article 1h4vs6b.ja4gt9j4go9jN%real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid, "D.M. Procida" real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle).
I think you'd be wrong. It all depends on rates of rotation, tilt, orbits etc. Dark side of the moon is a real phenomenon.
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
I thought one face of the moon generally faced the earth, hence the other side was dark?
dark to us, in that it never faces us, although sometimes it faces the sun, which cuts down its darkness.
Bonge Boo! bingbong@redacted.invalid wrote:
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
I thought one face of the moon generally faced the earth, hence the other side was dark?
No, it's invisible to us, but sometimes lit up by the sun.
Daniele
real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid (D.M. Procida) wrote: [daylight vs latitude]
My intuition tells me that given the earth's rotation and its orbit around the sun, every point on the earth's surface receives the same number of hours of daylight every year (assuming you don't cheat by choosing the end or beginning of long twilight periods as the limit, but the middle).
Your intuition is wrong. There are several unintuitive factors to consider - atmospheric refraction, the significant angular size of the sun, Earth's orbit being elliptical, the inclination of Earth's axis of rotation...
Tim
In message 1130026649.595056.314270@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator.
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
Plug in a latitude of 60 degrees and calculate day lengths for the longest and shortest days. (I used June 21 and December 21 2005 as the relevant dates.) The longest and shortest day lengths are 18.49 (decimal) hours and 5.51 hours. Absolute difference in each case is 6.49 hours so one cancels the other out.
There is no extra daylight resulting purely from latitude, certainly not the 5 hours that you are suggesting.
Regards,
Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid wrote:
In message 1130026649.595056.314270@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator.
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You sound awfully confident in that calculator. The results from it don't agree with the BBC's weather site. Calculator says today is 10 hours long in London, but the BBC says sunrise was at 07:35 BST and sunset was at 17:53 BST. That's 10 hours, 18 minutes.
Latitude 51.5 degrees used for London, but you have to enter around 47 degrees to get that calculator to agree with the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=0008
Tim
Tim Auton tim.auton@redacted.invalid wrote:
Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid wrote:
In message 1130026649.595056.314270@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator.
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You sound awfully confident in that calculator. The results from it don't agree with the BBC's weather site. Calculator says today is 10 hours long in London, but the BBC says sunrise was at 07:35 BST and sunset was at 17:53 BST. That's 10 hours, 18 minutes.
It isn't taking into account the shape of the earth. The calculation for that is much more complicated.
On 23/10/05 18:20, in article 1h4wdlc.126rro5s44235N%usenet@redacted.invalid, "Woody" usenet@redacted.invalid wrote:
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator.
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You sound awfully confident in that calculator. The results from it don't agree with the BBC's weather site. Calculator says today is 10 hours long in London, but the BBC says sunrise was at 07:35 BST and sunset was at 17:53 BST. That's 10 hours, 18 minutes.
It isn't taking into account the shape of the earth. The calculation for that is much more complicated.
What? Its not flat, floating on turtles? Bugger.
D.M. Procida real-not-anti-spam-address@redacted.invalid wrote:
Jim jim@redacted.invalid wrote:
If you mean that the dark side of the moon is always dark, then no, it's not actually dark. The dark side of the moon is just the far side of the moon, the one we never see. Also, unlike the earth, the moon does not spin around its own axis.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does. It's just that its period of revolution around its axis is the same as the period of revolution around the Earth, hence the same side is always facing us.
That's the trouble with Usenet, there's always some fucker who's prepared to split a thinner hair than you.
Tidal locking. It's a bugger.
Jim
In message ncgnl1po2d51e20j3uu76sn7eajvpgraiv@redacted.invalid, Tim Auton tim.auton@redacted.invalid writes
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You sound awfully confident in that calculator. The results from it don't agree with the BBC's weather site. Calculator says today is 10 hours long in London, but the BBC says sunrise was at 07:35 BST and sunset was at 17:53 BST. That's 10 hours, 18 minutes.
Latitude 51.5 degrees used for London, but you have to enter around 47 degrees to get that calculator to agree with the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=0008
If you put Entebbe[1] into the BBC Weather site it gives a day length of 12:07 which is presumably just their allowance for the diffraction effects etc that have already been mentioned. Maybe they allow more for higher latitudes?
You argue that the 60 deg latitude gets more daylight - so why is it that if you ask the Beeb site for the sunrise and sunset times for Juneau (lat=58.37), Seward (60.12) and Anchorage (61.17) they each have progressively shorter days? Shouldn't Seward be longer since it is closest to the 60 degree line?
Regards,
[1] Nearest place to the equator that I could find after a quick look in the back of the diary. :-)
In message pVB3hZM42+WDFwiK@redacted.invalid Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid wrote:
In message ncgnl1po2d51e20j3uu76sn7eajvpgraiv@redacted.invalid, Tim Auton tim.auton@redacted.invalid writes
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You sound awfully confident in that calculator. The results from it don't agree with the BBC's weather site. Calculator says today is 10 hours long in London, but the BBC says sunrise was at 07:35 BST and sunset was at 17:53 BST. That's 10 hours, 18 minutes.
Latitude 51.5 degrees used for London, but you have to enter around 47 degrees to get that calculator to agree with the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=0008
If you put Entebbe[1] into the BBC Weather site it gives a day length of 12:07 which is presumably just their allowance for the diffraction effects etc that have already been mentioned. Maybe they allow more for higher latitudes?
[snip]
[1] Nearest place to the equator that I could find after a quick look in the back of the diary. :-)
Try Nanyuki on the slopes of Mt Kenya, the equator runs through the bar of the local hotel.
Bruce Horrocks news@redacted.invalid wrote:
In message ncgnl1po2d51e20j3uu76sn7eajvpgraiv@redacted.invalid, Tim Auton tim.auton@redacted.invalid writes
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You sound awfully confident in that calculator. The results from it don't agree with the BBC's weather site. Calculator says today is 10 hours long in London, but the BBC says sunrise was at 07:35 BST and sunset was at 17:53 BST. That's 10 hours, 18 minutes.
Latitude 51.5 degrees used for London, but you have to enter around 47 degrees to get that calculator to agree with the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/5day.shtml?world=0008
If you put Entebbe[1] into the BBC Weather site it gives a day length of 12:07 which is presumably just their allowance for the diffraction effects etc that have already been mentioned. Maybe they allow more for higher latitudes?
The sun spends longer near the horizon at higher latitudes, so the effects of refraction are more significant.
You argue that the 60 deg latitude gets more daylight
It's not 'my argument', I've not done that maths so I can't say for sure, but a variation by latitude in total daylight hours seems very plausible to me. In fact, it seems rather likely.
- so why is it that if you ask the Beeb site for the sunrise and sunset times for Juneau (lat=58.37), Seward (60.12) and Anchorage (61.17) they each have progressively shorter days? Shouldn't Seward be longer since it is closest to the 60 degree line?
The argument was that latitudes around 60 degrees get more daylight over the course of a year than other latitudes. I wouldn't necessarily expect that to be reflected in the figures for a single day.
Tim
On 22/10/05 6:47, in article 1130003269.894353.228680@redacted.invalid, "sigvald@redacted.invalid" sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 1129928601.560651.66170@redacted.invalid sigvald@redacted.invalid wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message 4359195b$0$355$da0feed9@redacted.invalid Paul Russell prussell@redacted.invalid wrote:
[snip]
I think you'll find that the UK generally tops the international league tables for both alcohol consumption and alcoholism rates.
You've not heard of Scandinavia then?
The Nordic nations (Scandinavia, Finland and Iceland) drink the least amount of alcohol of all nations in Europe, much less than the UK drinks.
Try the alcoholism rates...
Yes, I did. Much lower in the Nordic countries than in the UK.
Isn't that at least partly due to the higher prices of alcohol over there?
Cheers,
Chris
Chris Ridd chrisridd@redacted.invalid wrote:
Try the alcoholism rates...
Yes, I did. Much lower in the Nordic countries than in the UK.
Isn't that at least partly due to the higher prices of alcohol over there?
But that's all part of the show. British taxation rates on alcohol- and Scando ones- are a product of those societies. So the tendency to binge drink is all wrapped up in that.
However there's more to it. The French consume a great deal of alcohol and have trouble with alcoholism- always have done- but binge drink far less even though spirits are easily available and cheaper than in Britain. I don't know why these differences arise.
Bruce Horrocks wrote:
In message 1130026649.595056.314270@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
No, it does not. At the equator every day is 12 hours long but around the 60=B0 area the longest day is 21 hours long (9 hours longer) and the shortest 5 hours long (4 hours shorter) so that area recieves longer daylight than the equator.
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You are using some sort of javascript, I am talking about reality.
Plug in a latitude of 60 degrees and calculate day lengths for the longest and shortest days. (I used June 21 and December 21 2005 as the relevant dates.) The longest and shortest day lengths are 18.49 (decimal) hours and 5.51 hours. Absolute difference in each case is 6.49 hours so one cancels the other out.
Try: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=3D211&obj =3Dsun&month=3D6&year=3D2005&day=3D1
This shows on june 21st 2005 sunrise at 02:57 and sunset at 00:02, a 21 hour of sunlight. On dec 21st 2005 it shows sunrise at 11:22 and sunset at 15:38 , just over 4 hours of sunlight.
There is no extra daylight resulting purely from latitude, certainly not the 5 hours that you are suggesting.
Oh, yes it does.
In message 1130186288.694808.225220@redacted.invalid, sigvald@redacted.invalid writes
I've no idea where you got your figures of 21 hours and 4 hours from but they are wrong. There is a length of day calculator here: http://www.jgiesen.de/astro/astroJS/decEoT/index.htm
You are using some sort of javascript, I am talking about reality.
[Snip]
Try: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=211&obj =sun&month=6&year=2005&day=1
You say that you are talking about reality but the site you link to clearly states that it is giving calculated times, as opposed to recorded times. See: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/aboutastronomy.html
Either site could equally be wrong but at least the one I mentioned gave a reference for the source of the algorithms used.
I would appreciate a link to a site that attempts to explain the phenomenon because it is not at all intuitive (to me at least) why certain latitudes should get more daylight.
Regards,