âoeUn-freeâ....

red hat being IBM in other words about as in-free as you can get

The actual data doesn't reflect any problem with the AZ vaccine. So, it's either EU states colluding or some kind of other malicious state actor(s) (people seem to forget China and Russia like to manipulate the story around world events) in a misinformation campaign to punish the UK, probably for Brexit or for geopolitical leverage or disruption. The globalised supply chain and demand for vaccines makes them incredibly useful as a political tool so i can't imagine this will be the only instance.

WTF does Hawking know about evolution anyway, he is a physicist. He has no scientific credibility in this area, and is trying to act the big man (ironically) because of his fame, exploiting the man on the street who thinks he is an expert on everything. Language is just behaviour, as is the recording of information. Evolution does not work in 'phases'. What he is talking about is memetic replication, which has nothing to do with genetic replication and evolution. He is not saying anything new anyway. Dawkins blah.

not news

The point is, individuals adjust their perceived risk to their 'preferred' level and to the environment. The environment includes the car itself. In my view older cars with less safety features involve you more in the process of driving and require that you are more aware and 'in the loop'. This type of phenomenon is indicated in much ergonomics research of the last 20yrs.

Human factors and ergonomics literature has been suggesting risk-migration driving behaviour for a long number of years. There is a much cited example in Scandinavia of a local government trialling the switch-off of all street lights, which exhibited a reduction in accidents during the trial. There was also another Scando nation that switched from driving on the right to the left, also with a reduction in accidents. Problem is the effect may only be temporary due to risk injection.

Faslane is a well-known naval nuclear facility (hence the 'peace camp' photolink just south of the facility on the map), they assemble nuclear subs there I believe... (hence the picture of the sub also on the map). Maybe its not so well known to the English...

A technically valid but functionally pointless idea.

That is inaccurate in my experience. A permanent average standard developer costs less than a contractor. Don't forget the contractee must pay daily agency fees, and their wage is gross of income tax (it is the contractors responsibility to pay this themselves). Having all contract staff is an astonishingly expensive way to run your business, and is usually the save of large organisations so they can make them all redundant at the drop of a hat and won't hurt their stock price by having to make it public like they would with permanent workers. In times of downturn the outlook becomes very short-termist and whilst contract workers may be attractive to business to fulfil short-term projects, this does not translate to increased job security or wages for workers, which would be the things they would be looking for. If you have a permanent job then stick at it. Unfortunately we are being pushed down maslows hierarchy (before any picks me up on that its psych BS not mngmt BS) and we can not really be so concerned with what excites us or sparks our imagination. It is more about survival and people need to take account for that in the decisions they make, I feel.

Sorry for p1ssing on your chips, but this is an awful idea. There could not be a worse time to go contract. You won't be earning any more money, probably a lot less. Contracting affords little job security, but this is so much worse at the minute, and even if you end up on a contract you have a short termination clause and could be severed at short notice any time. The likelihood of getting a contract is vastly reduced right now as compared to 1-2yrs ago. You would be closing your options down dramatically by going part-time, as most hirers would not be interested (I certainly wouldn't be). They have projects with a deadlines, and would rather hire someone who will work a full week. Projects are harder to plan with mixed resource availability, and its just a management overhead, and maybe even a morale issue for the other staff to have a PTer on the team. Think of it from your prospective employers perspective - if it costs the same per hour why not have someone who can realise vastly more effort in a working week? I think you are being a bit greedy, because you think you are in a good position right now. I would seriously consider taking stock, getting a "reality check" (i hate that phrase) and looking at what you do have. I have to say that dark times are ahead, and you need to make hay whilst the sun shines. Get your head down, pay your mortgage, get through it. DON'T try to be too clever. The one exception I would have to this is learn new stuff, don't rely on any one tech to pay the bills. I am a architect/team-lead and I plan to spend 2009 diversifying into new techs, grabbing with both hands any opportunities that arise at work, getting a ton of certs in (my company relies on that, I don't although it can decorate the CV a bit), looking out for me and my family and working my ass off. Not the time to be taking the foot off the pedal.