Man loses £130,000 in online scam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7829177.stm

Okay, you’re a nice bloke, you decide to help out someone you’ve met online, fair enough.

You then get emails from some “FBI agents” telling you that you’ve been scammed, but it’s okay because they’ll investigate it if you’ll pay their expenses.

And you do.

All in all you cough up £130,000.

At what point did it occur to you that, just maybe, something wasn’t right?

 

Advertisements

This worries me…

BBC NEWS | UK | Switch off for traditional bulbs

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for being environmentally friendly but, call me selfish, my sanity has to come before the well-being of the planet.

We have tried numerous types of energy efficient bulbs and they’re all dreadful in one way or another. The least offensive in terms of light quality are the ones my mum has in her bathroom BUT they have a nasty head-hurty flicker as they come on which makes me wince and it’s really only acceptable because it’s not a room you have to spend a lot of time in.

The one Codepope has in his room at the moment is like letting the light from a particularly grey day into the office. Hardly effective.

100W equivalent be bollocksed. I don’t know how you’re making this comparison but it obviously doesn’t involve anyone actually looking at the light. I can stand on out landing and see the light in my room (a standard 100W bulb in a uplighter shade) and the light in his. They are not comparable in any way. I can look directly at the energy efficient bulb and not be left with a hint of an after-image.

And that uplighter shade? Well I use that to minimise reflections and highlights on my computer screen and a jolly good job it does to; nice balance of general light in the room without any glare. I have yet to see an energy efficient bulb which will even fit in an uplighter shade. They’re all much bigger than standard bulbs.

And what about the great Philips Wake-up Light we bought yesterday? That sure as hell won’t take one of the new bulbs and quite frankly I’d rather wake up to the natural light from a miserable November morning than the piss-poor light from an energy efficient bulb.

Light is important to me. Especially around this time of year. If I didn’t have my Brightspark and hadn’t been using it for the last month I would currently be sitting in the corner wondering what the point of it all was and wishing desperately for spring.

$10m to kill Litvinenko?

The Times has an article which states that Litvinenko’s killers used polonium worth $10m to give massive overdose.

It goes on to say:

“… said that as a single unit costed about $69, it would take at least 15,000 orders, costing more than $10 million, to kill someone.”

but 69 x 15,000 = 1,035,000

That’s a shade over one million, not ten.

How to explain this discepancy?

a. the price is wrong
b. the quantity is wrong
c. the maths is wrong
or
d. an order = 10 units

Actually it doesn’t really matter which, what matters is that The Times at best lacks clarity over the core fact in a story.

Even assuming the best case that they forgot to mention an order was for 10 units, Tim Worstall explains why it still wouldn’t cost anywhere near $10 million.

Okay, so maybe I’m just being picky but things like that leap out at me and scream “how can you have any faith in the rest of the article if they can’t exlpain this bit clearly?”…