New planet discovered

A science paper predicts that a nearby red-star system known as Gliese 581 is the likely candidate for an extrasolar habitable world. Two years on, the alien world is indeed discovered. TheBigRetort

The recent discovery of another pale-blue spot in space, which is currently circling a 'nearby' star system known as Gliese 581, has created a bit of a stir on planet Earth. But the real value is in how it was actually 'encountered'.

In fact as far back as two years ago physicists Rhett Zollinger and John Armstrong addressed the ‘possible’ existence of an undetected lower mass planet inside the Gliese 581 star’s Habitable Zone; due to what the two termed ‘the dynamical stability evolution of the system‘.

The pair compared studies of the three known planets in the Gliese 581 system.

Of these two of the three known planets 'C 'and 'D’ were located at the edges of what is euphemistically called the Goldilocks Zone. That's the zone where water is likely to be found - and therefore a habitable 'Goldilocks' - zone.

However, and what is even more interesting, Zollinger and Armstrong penned their paper two years before the planet was discovered - and in that same Goldilocks Zone. “Thus, Gliese 581 remains a good candidate for future detection of habitable Earth-mass planets," they wrote.

So, possible names? Zollarm. Zollstron.

The Apprentice: Sir Alan knuckles under

Sir Alan Sugar may feel even he has gone a bit too far if he hires former Marine Christopher Farrell. TheBigRetort lifts the lid on the Knuckleduster Sniper.

Styling himself as ‘a former marine’, Christopher Farrell pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing an offensive weapon when he appeared at Plymouth Crown Court some years back.

When arrested Farrell was found to possess an extendable baton and a knuckleduster in his car - and was later branded a liar by the Judge.

Prosecutor Paul Frost said that around 6.30pm on February 3, police acting on a phone call visited Farrell's home and waited for him to arrive. His wife claimed he had hit her with the knuckleduster, drawing blood.

They searched Farrell's blue Mercedes for weapons. They found an extendable baton and a knucklesduster.

Farrell, then 28, told police they were there "trinkets" from his days in the force.

The former Marine had bought the baton in the USA and the knuckleduster in 2001 in Afghanistan, but claimed he had never used either. (Come on, in Afghanistan!)

Judge Francis Gilbert QC made it clear that he did not accept Farrell's explanation.

The beating of his wife with a knuckleduster brought no official complaint, and Farrell was not prosecuted.

In mitigation the court heard he was an ex-Royal Marine who had been bought out of his partnership as a financial services adviser and was about to start a new job. (Probably on the telly!)

Judge Gilbert said: "I don't believe your explanation that this was a convenient place to store trinkets, or that you never used them. Your wife complained that you hit her when you lost your temper." He ordered him to pay full prosecution costs and conditionally discharged Farrell for two years, warning him that he risked jail in future.

Sir Allan: You son are a muppit! You're---
Director: --Watch out, Srallan, what's that in his hand!--
Sir Allan: --Err, you're...hired...?

Kepler: The truth is out there

Many scientists in the United States and worldwide are furious that the space agency NASA has apparently allowed a small body of Kepler scientists to sit on data that may confirm if another Earth-like planet lies within 'lens' reach of our solar system. (That's anywhere light years away.) But could the leaking of the discovery made by the Kepler scientists be due to a simple glitch in the machine?

It has been argued that more time was needed for Kepler scientists to confirm the discovery of over 140 Earth-like exoplanets. Apparently the 'yearly' transits of these planets needed to be confirmed by additional research, an investigation that would, under Earth-like circumstances, take three years.

Apparently it takes our planet one whole year to go around the sun and back again.

It takes three such years then to confirm the findings?

Not so. Dimitar Sasselov, an investigator with the Kepler group itself - accidentally on purpose? - released some of the findings to a special audience at Oxford, England. It was Sassilov that suggested that over 140 Earth-like 'candidates' had been detected by the Kepler Telescope - which even before all the science is done is pretty Earth shattering.

And so the scientific community went supernova.

Sasselov and his team estimate that there are over 100 million planets that are 'Earth-like'.

We are not alone.

We are not so special after all.

But could the 'Sasselov gaff' really conceal a hidden agenda on a tiny pale dot?

The Kepler mission's ultimate goal is (i) to find Earth-size planets, (ii) at the right distances from their parent stars - which does not mean the same distance as Earth is from its star by the way - and, iii) at a distance where liquid water makes them a potential abode for life as Jim knows it.

But does that mean that we will have to wait three years to confirm the three transits of a planet in order for it to be considered Earth-like?

Well no...

'Earth-like planets' simply lie inside the habitable zones of their parent star. The habitable zone is the area where liquid water will be present - which just happens to be the distance where we are in relation to our sun. Please note though that other worlds do not have to be the same distance from their suns as planet Earth is from its sun. Most, if not all of these planets, will probably circle their stars in months and not years... and so the reason for the wait is that damned glitch.

The task of confirming these 'candidates' has been made extremely difficult due to faulty light detectors on the telescope. The problem was made known prior to the launch. And that's the real reason why the Kepler announcement on the planets' discovery was pushed back to February 2011. Not to give scientists a chance to study and publish: but to tweak. And the real reason why Dr Sasselov was allowed to speak about some of the discoveries is that the Kepler Team will be best placed to pip other scientists to the post by drip-feeding news of each batch of Earth-like 'candidates' as and when each glitch in the telescope is fixed. QED.

Professor Joan Ginther: Do the numbers add up?

A Texan aged 63 has won at scratch-off card games every two years since 2006. In 1993 she also won a lottery bringing her total winnings to over $20m. Which is amazingly coincidental. But what if a seemingly ordinary person somehow managed to narrow the odds and beat the system, goddamnit? An American newspaper might say slim pickin's. TheBigRetort says...

Joan Rae Ginther’s luck began in 1993, when she won $5.4 million dollars on a game known as “Lotto Texas“.

Another win thirteen years later in 2006 netted her $2m.

Curiously, every two years since that date, she has won at scratch off games, two cards having been bought at her local store.

In 1993 she won $5.4 million; the odds: 1 in 15.8 million; in 2006 she won $2 million in a scratch off game; the odds: 1 in 1,028,338; in 2008 she won $3 million in a scratch off; odds: 1 in 909,000.

Her latest win in 2010, also a scratch off, was for $10 million; odds of winning: 1 in 1,200,000.

In fact experts contend that the odds of winning four lottery jackpots are about 200 million to one.

Only, what if she was a person good with numbers? What if a person good with numbers targeted a specific store to purchase a scratch card? What if... an investigation by TheBigRetort revealed that Joan "Rae" Ginther was a professor of maths - a former job she has not declared.

Ginther, a maths professor (something she has kept unduly quiet about) visited the store that sold an average of 1,000 tickets a day...

What would a math's professor visiting a store (in another state where her dad had died) want to know? How many tickets had been purchased? How many winning tickets? How big were the wins? What were the winning numbers over the, err, past 22 months say? Once the professor had all of the answers, which may take two years of doing the maths, then it's scratch off time. And another big win for Joan.

TheBigRetort pips Associated Press to the post on this one. [View link above, and compare the dates.]

Venables Prejudged: A government cover-up

Could Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, be involved in a gigantic cover-up? If so, he's going down... and not just in the eyes of the voter.

TheBigRetort has uncovered evidence which may suggest that the recent furore over the new identity of Jon Venables may be designed solely to conceal the possibility that he has ALREADY been convicted. of a serious offence involving children long before it was announced.

Just think it through for a minute....

Venables is amongst one of four people in Britain protected by what are termed ‘Mary Bell’ injunctions.

Bell was convicted of the manslaughter of two boys in 1968 and given anonymity after her release.

The recipients receive lifetime protection of their real identities.

It was recently reported in the Daily Mail that a ‘tight-knit group alone knows the new identity of Jon Venables. It operates in a culture of ‘extreme secrecy’, so even the arresting officers may not have known who they had in their cells. However, theBigRetort believes that fears that the recall could see Venables’ new identity being discovered and his life threatened because of fellow prisoners' suspicions about special treatment, is purely a smokescreen – designed to assist the Government in a gigantic cover-up.

What if Jon Venables has in fact ALREADY been tried and convicted under his new alias? What if he was ALREADY languishing inside a British prison when he was in fact ‘recalled under licence’ by a Justice Minister eager to catch up with a forgotten man?

Thought police aside, as our old mother would say, if true... it is quite an elaborate charade.

Could it be that Justice Minister Jack Straw, along with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hopes that a smokescreen of excessive secrecy surrounding the ‘recent arrest’ will buy the Labour government time?

Once it discovered Venables conviction (not arrest) it must have quickly moved to close down the ever watchful media.

If the serious allegations against Mr Venables can be dealt with AFTER a General Election it is highly likely that a voter backlash can be avoided, and Labour may be left to increase the secrecy once more.

Be that as it may (or may not) be...

It is likely that, if an arrest and conviction did take place - long before the Government announcement - the Government itself may not have known until after the new conviction was sealed: due to the excessive secrecy the Government imposed on Venables' new identity in the first place.

Confused?... you should be.

This would indicate serious failings within the probation service itself and with the government’s obsession in doling out new identities to violent offenders in search of a new life.

But, is it an obsession which allows Government to hoodwink the British public and justice too?

The questions that must be answered before a General Election...

Venables was already in prison LONG before he was recalled under licence… but why?

Why?

Coming soon in theBigRetort... secrets, lies, and spin.

Deslandes: The Police and Black-on-Black Crime

The Sun newspaper and Operation Trident. TheBigRetort discovers the (black) gangland shootout that never was.

On the 1st January 2010, at approximately 5am, following a New Year’s celebration at a family owned pub, Darren Deslandes, a 34-year old housing officer, was shot dead by a black assailant. (His younger brother “junior” still lays critically injured in hospital fighting for life.) "Wild West-style shootout,” the Sun proclaimed in bold writing, with the usual nodding unspoken emphasis to the scum involved. [Sun report, since removed, http://tinyurl.com/yjb82y4.] Or so a lazy staff reporter intimated…

Far from being gun-wielding, drug dealing black street thugs, Darren Deslandes and his brother Junior were only armed with a good education and a loving family, one that had provided foster care for nine children. In fact Darren and Junior were (if anything) plucked out of the air by one piece of prima fascia 'evidence' that stands out on a three-pronged fork: they were black. And as a result guilty in the eyes of the law.

Apparently, hours into a new decade, the armed officers from the Met Police’s black-on-black gun crime task force Operation Trident were quickly on the scene. (Trident’s involvement may be found to be the root – should that be ‘route’? - of the later erroneous newspaper copy.) But the officers must have had their views coloured by what greeted them that night... A black assailant had fled the crime scene leaving Darren and Junior Deslandes dying from a hail of bullets. However, curiously, the two victims were immediately treated as “suspects” - a view supported by the Sun. But with one gun, and one single ‘assailant’, how could this be?

Surrounded by armed police, death and coma quickly stalked the Deslandes pair – along with that lazy journalist. The Sun informed its readership that one brother was dead and the other critical following the ‘gun battle’. [Emphasis added.] But with only one gun - and one perpetrator, who had fled the scene according to witnesses, how could there have been a 'gun battle'? The Sun also had “witnesses” (unnamed) who claimed they had actually seen the “two men” who "simply drew guns" (plural) and who “started firing at each other after a heated row”.

"These two guys just appeared in the street and started shooting at each other,” the Sun's witnesses negatively enthused. "God knows what it was about but it must have been serious if they thought the only way it could be settled was to shoot each other." [Emphasis to underline that no one knew what it was about or why they should shoot ‘each other’? And neither did the Sun.]

The Deslandes brothers had done no such thing. Darren died, Junior slipped into a coma, reputations tarnished, guilt etched on their black, bloodied bodies - and across the Sun newspaper too. How could this be was a question rightly asked.

However, the anger of the family and friends of the Deslandes brothers does not solely focus on the Sun’s reporting. It is rightly seeking both an apology and a correction for that. Remarkably however, it is claimed that the Operation Trident officers did not intervene to save the brothers due to what were termed, ‘health and safety issues’. They were denied medical attention for half an hour. Officers apparently blocked the ambulance crew from attending in case the pair was armed. One 13 year-old brother was taken into custody and questioned at length. According to a family friend, “They seemed eager to establish a drug or gangster link.”

But there was none.

In the Deslandes pub however the Sun newspaper was read and Operation Trident’s consent to police the streets - it polices London with what it terms ‘the consent of the black community’- was one that the family endorsed. But would the Deslandes brothers have been treated differently if Trident took a less three-pronged fork-tongued approach to what is a black-and-white certainty? Gone are the days when the police may investigate themselves.

David Cameron injects Botox: Official

In a remarkable hush-hush scoop TheBigRetort has discovered that David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, regularly injects Botox in his forehead. (Chuckle.)

The hope is that voters at the forthcoming general election will be hooked...?

In which case the Old Etonian Toff has ironed out the wrinkles on an otherwise furrowed brow and transformed 'hisself into the Peter Pan of British no-policy politics. (Or is that the Peter Pan of English Botox?)

Gordon Brown stop smiling on the way to the polls.

Immortality: secret uncorked

The secret to living a longer life, or just a load of plonk? TheBigRetort pulls the cork...

Scientists claim that sirtuins, proteins, become increasingly important as people age. It is these proteins that ensure which genes should be “off” - and thereby remain silent as the ageing process continues.

Paradoxically it is these same proteins that are believed to repair DNA damage as we age. The critical protein controls which genes are off and on as well as overseeing DNA repair - and there’s the rub. As we age, chromosomes get damaged and the SIR1 proteins are finally overwhelmed. It is this activity that leads to the process of aging, not time itself which moves on inexorably, unconcerned by birthdays and mankind his or herself.

But can the aging process itself be slowed?

Scientists are beginning to suspect so; mice with more SIRT1 proteins have the improved ability to repair their DNA and prevent the unwanted changes in genes.

Resveratrol extended the lifespan in mice by 24 to 46 percent.

Remarkably previous studies have shown that Resveratrol, a chemical found primarily in red wine, helps activate the SIRT1 protein. The chemical reduces the degenerative diseases associated with the aging process (such as Alzheimer’s), and certain cancers could also be treated.

Unfortunately researchers claim that it is too early for people to start taking Resveratrol, but a glass of red wine at dinner is recommended. The question is, will we get old drinking it?

The Large Hadron Collider: Is it safe?

A controversial experiment is planned to take place tomorrow that may signal THE END of the Earth. But could experiments like the controversial Large Hadron Collider (LHC) already have taken place? TheBigRetort investigates...and discovers that someone may have got the 'maths' wrong.

The LHC Safety Study Group studied the safety of the forthcoming experiment in 2003. It concluded that the planned experiments—there are a number of them--presented no danger.

The group focused on two phenomena, namely the possible production of microscopic black holes, the sort that suck you in and blow you out and create additional dimensions of space, which way is up?- and also postulated other exotic phenomena - the possible production of ‘strangelets', hypothetical pieces of matter. The LHC will reproduce, in the laboratory and under controlled conditions, collisions at centre-of-mass energies less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays that have been bombarding the Earth for billions of years.

The ‘stability’ of these astronomical bodies indicates that such collisions cannot be dangerous.

The study also considered other hypothetical objects, vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles, and found ‘no associated risks’. Indeed, if anything like a microscopic black hole is produced at the LHC then it is expected to decay before it reaches the detector walls.

In the case of strangelets, their production in heavy-ion collisions will also present no danger.

In fact the LHC experiment is nothing new as far as nature is itself concerned. The energy created inside the accelerator is still far below those created in the Universe.

High-energy cosmic rays have bombarded the earth since its creation.

The LHC accelerator is designed to collide pairs of protons and pairs of lead nuclei. But their combined energies will still be far below those of the highest-energy cosmic-ray collisions that are observed regularly on Earth.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter-rotating beams of protons or heavy ions. When the LHC attains its design collision rate, it will produce about a billion proton-proton collisions per second in each of the major detectors. It will produce the equivalent of 116 days of collisions. So if the experiment where to run in this time frame, and they have got their sums wrong, life as we know it could all be over - in four months.

Fortunately nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already – and the planet still exists.

It has also conducted the same experiment on the Sun about one billion times – and the Sun still exists. Moreover, our Milky Way galaxy contains countless stars with sizes similar to our Sun, and there are countless similar galaxies in the visible Universe. Cosmic rays have been hitting all these stars at rates similar to collisions with our own Sun. This means that Nature has already completed what the LHC sets out to do tomorrow - only more cheaply. But there is one slight fly in the ointment that the safety experts seemed to have missed, and it's cosmic. i

What we see of our solar system and the Milky Way Galaxy, plus the galaxies beyond is already history.In other words, if Nature,or some 'thing' else, has created a similar experiment, then we may not yet see the catastrophic results painted on to the backdrop of our night skies. In fact,the nearest star system at Alpha Centauri lies some 4. 2 light years away. In other words, if a black hole sucked it up yesterday we would not witness its disappearance until after the 2012 Olympics. A sobering thought.

Michael's Ashes: The response

Recently we delivered a startling account of the major failings of Eastbourne District General Hospital and its 'aftercare' treatment... of a dead man. Michael Morgan, 51, died in December last and was swiftly cremated on the instruction of hospital officials at 'EDGH': but without the family's knowledge. Following which, they asked for the ashes. Not much to ask given the circumstances one might think, however... it was a request that met with silence. Now, finally, the family has received a response, and it looks as if someone may have removed one of the branches of its family tree. An exclusive from TheBigRetort

In "Michael's Ashes" we highlighted the failings of East Sussex NHS Trust and its 'dead patient aftercare'... which was found to be a bit wanting.

When Michael Morgan died and his family discovered the death and cremation (nearly three months later and only via a chance encounter) Kim Hodgson, chief executive of East Sussex Trust, immediately went into emergency mode. She 'disowned' the family from the former patient claiming that it was not entitled to any further information about his treatment.

Kim Hodgson came to the job as chief executive amidst some controversy. We also saw huge parallels between the treatment of Michael's grieving family at the hands of seemingly uncaring bureaucrats to Ms Hodgson's own loss some time back of a pet dog called Blue.

The dog was stolen and (also) held to ransom and never returned. (We do not want to see that happen with Michael... Or his ashes at least.)

Various newspapers picked up on the piece which not only presented the family's plight but shone a light on East Sussex Trust itself. Following a series of catastrophic and sloppy blunders it failed to demonstrate its attempts to inform Michael's family of his death and later cremation.

Ms Hodgson is also responsible for the overall performance of the executive functions at East Sussex NHS Trust. The 'Accountable Officer', it is her job is to ensure that the Trust discharges its obligations such as patient care and aftercare -or so one might hope.

Instead, Ms Hodgson, presumably advised by expensive lawyers - at a considerable cost to the NHS - has previously ignored repeated requests by the family to hand over the ashes. So why the Dibben statement now?

Could it be the Healthcare Commission investigation? Or MP Joan Ruddock who has also taken an interest? Or the publicity? Whatever the reason, and the plot thickens day by day, if Michael's family had hoped to get a sympathetic ear - along with the answers in this sordid tale - it has now been quashed with Irene Dibben's response.

But Dibben's inability to follow her remit through 'effective communication' and also to 'appraise' her chief executive's actions should be noted.

In what must rank as a great understatement and salt-rubbing of wounds statement, Dibben wrote in her letter that she was aware that the response may cause the family 'further distress'.

Hello all brain cells! If it was a comedy they would be rolling in the aisles. But it's not, it's a tragedy.

So, cover up or cock up? You choose.

Coming soon in TheBigRetort.... We 'Deep Clean' East Sussex NHS Trust.

Barack Obama: Why he should be president

As the child of a black man and white woman Barack Obama is often (simply) referred to as 'black'. A description that will one day serve to display a time of ignorance - because Barack Obama is much much more.

"There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America," Obama once wrote.

However, note in the above paragraph from his book The Audacity of Hope that there is no capital letter on black and white. In fact, neither is a nation, and neither is a culture. Obama, born between the two, has already made the journey and knows this. And, although many in the US have leaned heavily on 'skin' difference for quite some time this presidential candidate - if elected - would help a young nation recognise that any 'difference' between them is countered by that which unites: America.

Meanwhile, in 2008, a fledgling nation stands at the crossroads. A presidential candidate, born in the racial melting pot of Hawaii, with a half Indonesian sister, a brother in-law and niece of Chinese descent, with blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher, and others who could pass for Bernie Mac?

America: you decide.

But before you do: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

GoDaddy: the Odd Bob or two, and the Clickfraud Scandal

Around the globe the words 'domain' and 'cash parking' are synonymous with GoDaddy. So why are 70% of the reviews on the first page of Google so negative? TheBigRetort investigates... and finds the odd Bob or two. (Pictured left, Bob Parsnips, founder GoDaddy.)

Google GoDaddy along with Cashparking and it quickly becomes evident that all is not well in Elsinore. (That's Denmark for all our American readers.) Indeed... the praise once heaped on the largest domain name registrar in the world has now turned to opprobrium. There is a pestilence in the land and many a brave knight quickly stirs abroad, to other domains. (Oops. We quote a writer of plays born over here.) What we mean is, here's just one of many critiques...

"I like GoDaddy.com and I admire Bob Parsons, his 'bigger than life' personality and panache reflecting on GoDaddy, so it’s not personal, it’s business," one disgruntled critic wrote. He had invested in the GoDaddy Cashparking scheme but when he saw the cash disappear he realised something was not quite right. He was concerned by the lack of 'plain words' in GoDaddy's terms of service, such as the 'other similar methods' in relation to what type of traffic GoDaddy 'allowed'. A definition that could accommodate virtually anything; and was meant to.

GoDaddy's pays out in three monthly cycles and this can lead to abuse of the cashparking system - by the registrar itself. In the above case several thousand dollars had accumulated but was destined to remain in GoDaddy's deep pockets. The advertising revenue was invalidated by GoDaddy - 'siezed'. Or so he alleged. His advice: avoid Godaddy Cash Parking.

But can uncertainty be part of a Bob Parsons masterplan to even greater wealth?

After all, Parsons can recall his war service years with such startling clarity - thirty years on - that such an accusation must fail to impress. Here's just a few snippets of what the founder of GoDaddy has posted about his 'days' in Vietnam.

"I can remember arriving on that hill in the middle of nowhere. The night prior, the squad I was newly assigned to had been ambushed and most of them were killed. It wasn’t that moment I got afraid. Later that night I sat on this wall of an old French fort and looked into this valley and thought – this is it…I’m going to die here and I accepted that and from then on I was OK.... From the next day on, my only goal and I mean my only goal, was to simply make it to mail call. I figured that I would take small steps, tie them together, and it would get me to the finish line and that thought is what I use today to make GODADDY successful – simply get to the next day."

So that's it, in a nutshell... Or is it?

Bob Parsons enlisted in the US Marine Corps in 1968. He arrived in Vietnam, in his words, 'by late February 1969'. However, Delta Company rosters record that "Parsons, Bob, R" commenced his tour of duty at the 1st January 1969 - seven weeks before the date he claims. 

On February 22, four Delta Co marines were indeed killed and six more wounded.

If the rosters are correct then the 5-week stint followed a rather inactive period for Delta Company: and for Bob.

The events are said to have influenced Bob's life forever. He was apparently later medically evacuated from Hill 190 after being wounded at Quang Nam - in the buttocks - five weeks after arriving there.  Or should that be five weeks after he claims he arrived there?

Bob Parsons is unlikely to screw up his dates so there is probably another explanation for the discrepancy. The Delta Co. Marines killed in the vicinity of Hill 190 that day were, Woodrow W. Adams; LCpl. Michael Cruse; Cpl. Edward Gum and Cpl. Robert W. Topham, Jr. See "History of Delta 1/26" by Tom Howard at delta126.org for a full account. The Command Chronologies of 1st Battalion 26th Marines date from August 1966 to March 1970. [They are not available for the month that Parsons claims he was there.]

But TheBigRetort ventures too far into the enemy's paddy fields, on what is essentially a dark night, so back to domain basics.

TheBigRetort's first article in the GoDaddy Series was last seen comfortably sitting on the second page of Google, which is not too bad for a tiny English blog more accustomed to rocking the boat in Dear Old Blighty than across the Pond in the Americas (where it is also read).

But now, according to a recent Google search, it is almost rubbing shoulders with GoDaddy itself.

No mean feat...

In the words of SEO guru David Viney in his book Get to the top on Google:

"84% of searchers never make it past the bottom of page two of search engine results. Just think about this for a moment. Imagine the web is one giant city, with stores scattered through it. Having your site in the top 10 is like having your store right on Main Street or near the entrance of the largest shopping mall in human history. Being outside the top 20 is like having a corner store on the outskirts of town."

But first, a gentle reminder from our sponsor...

Our previous expose revealed that GoDaddy founder B-O-B  P-A-R-S-O-N-S (the marine with the ring) pocketed $1.6 million in advertising revenue from parked pages - it beats working for a living - and many of the domains belonged to people who had purchased them from the Baltimore Bully himself. 

GoDaddy offered the opportunity for one and all to share in its revenue success via its new CashParking scheme - at a price, naturally.  TheBigRetort snook a little look at what Daddy was up to: and was not that impressed.

"Earn up to 80% of ad revenue" boasted its CashParking Plan. GoDaddy keeps the other 20%. Oh, and don't forget... you must also pay for the right to use the CashParking plan too.  Does the phrase MONEY FOR OLD DOMAINS spring to mind?

When TheBigRetort invested in the scheme the revenue generated from its rather sizeable portfolio remained no more than a trickle. And what cash did come our way suddenly - and inexplicably - disappeared. The domains had done a Houdini. Alongside approximately $20 that also vanished from the CashParking account. We decided to find out what had happened.

It usually takes GoDaddy's Sales & Support team 24 hours to respond to queries - even though the company boasts a '24/7' 'support, getting anwers from its media office and the 'Office of the President' were equally problematic, and 'vague'. We wondered if the PR department at GoDaddy was working overtime to 'bury' a certain story that had been hovering on Google's page two... until it moved up the Google ranks. (It's now in the top ten.)

To recap... GoDaddy previously accrued $1.6 million in advertising revenue from 'parked' domains: for itself.  It did not share this revenue with its customers. TheBigRetort wanted a few nuggets of wisdom from Bob Parsons himself. We wanted to know if any other customers were as lucky as he.

We also wanted to know what had happened to two domains and $20; GoDaddy initially claimed that the two domains were 'both correctly pointing' at its cash parking nameservers; only to add later 'But the domain names are set up to forward to external URLs. In order for these domains to properly resolve to the cash parking account, the forwarding will need to be removed.'

Double-Dutch. However, when GoDaddy then responded (eventually) that this was not in fact the real problem we wondered if we could smell 'vagueness'.

The two domains it transpired had been completely removed. GoDaddy was suddenly threatening to close down 'the entire' Cash Parking account. It explained why: "These determinations are not made based on the amount of traffic that comes to your domains. The amount of impressions to your domain(s) is not a determining factor by GoDaddy or Google. It is not permitted for you to routinely click on your own links in the Cash Parking system."

'Routinely click'? 'On our own links'? Apparently CashParking is designed to share the revenue generated on domains based on (i) Accidental Traffic; mistypes, etc., or, (ii) Residual Traffic; domains that have undergone a change of ownership. This usually happens when a registrant forgets to renew, and then the person who lifts the domain steals his traffic; which is a rather astonishing and immoral concept.

GoDaddy was confidently stating that it was okay to earn money out of other people making typing errors - accidental traffic - or by 'passing off' as the longstanding owner of a previous site.

Although many punters believe that the 'residual' traffic becomes theirs by default this is not always the case. Some purchasers suddenly encounter empty space with no old links to the domain name.

Surprisingly, with the above lofty ideal, GoDaddy Cash Parking does not allow the intentional generation of traffic to any of your domains via a link for instance (even with a warning) - so there appears to be very little way of gaining any income from the cash parking scheme. Something GoDaddy does not immediately point out at the point of purchase. (It's buried somewhere in its terms and conditions; the small print.)

Indeed TheBigRetort has so far concluded that much of GoDaddy's cashparking 'revenue' is based on the naivety of the purchaser (its customers), and is also  one-sided.

Conveniently allegations of clickfraud, often unsubstantiated, lead to expulsion; with retention by GODADDY of the revenue raised.

But what domains had been 'routinely clicked' in our portfolio and by whom?

"The most common problem leading to a determination such as this is the Click Through Rate (CTR), or the percentage of clicks vs. total impressions to your domain. This is a fairly accurate way to determine if the behavior of the impressions to your domain is consistent with what Google would determine as "natural behavior". We find that natural human traffic will result in Click Through Rates (CTR) of no more than 40% on sites with more than 1 or 2 visitors. CTR's significantly or consistently higher than that are usually indicative of incentivized clicks, click groups, or software programs designed to simulate click traffic."

What 'click groups'? Could we see a report?

"We are unable to provide full reports on the statistics that caused these traffic patterns. Unnatural traffic is defined as traffic that any given domain may see when not advertised, or targeted. Normal traffic does not generally cause the amounts of traffic we see on your domain name, thus is considered to be unnatural and provoked. Residual Traffic tends to taper off after a period of time where as incidental traffic traditionally does not have high click through rates. In this instance the domain does not fit into either category as the traffic appears to be steady and excessively high."

Twenty dollars...?

According to GoDaddy rival competitors can also click on a competitors ads in order to undermine his or her campaign and exhaust their budget.

In addition, you may not generate traffic to your website or Go Daddy's links by any 'listings on newsgroups, bulk e-mailing, icq postings, chatroom postings, iframes, zero pixel frames, hitbots, clickbots, spiders, cgi-scripts, JavaScript, click farms or any other similar method'.

So, no advertising at all - which means no BIG bucks.

"This includes clicking on your own links. As a result, your Cash Parking service has been permanently suspended. Our regulations are in line with those of Google. As Google will not be providing revenue to us for what has been deemed to be unnatural traffic, we will not have any revenue to share with you."

But hadn't Google already paid GoDaddy a bundle of cash?

We attempted to open a dialogue with Bob Parsons, ex-marine, founder of Godaddy and its chairman. We wanted to know how he managed to make $1.6 million from cashparking... and we also wanted a copy of the report in order that we could conduct our own investigation into the 'click fraud scandal'. But it wasn't that easy. GODADDY responded:

"Please be aware that our founder and CEO, Mr. Parsons, is extremely busy with his vast array of duties and thus is not able to personally reply to emails sent to our office given the amount of correspondence. As you may already know our President and COO is Mr. Adelman. Mr. Adelman reviews all messages delivered to this address; due to the volume he is unable to reply personally. However, at his discretion he may opt to do so or add to the comments of our office." It added, "Unfortunately for security purposes we cannot discuss the methods used to monitor this traffic, and this includes the information found on the domain names in question."

Sent to Guantanamo; without trial. Beaten by the 'evidence'. The GoDaddy jury had finally reached its verdict; however vague. Meanwhile, in the Cashparking pages themselves, the message could not have been more clear: "Domains not allowed due to fraudulent activity".

 

 

Coming soon... TheBigRetort.com

GoDaddy, Cashparking, and Click fraud...The Big Retort

GoDaddy is the largest domain name registrar in the 'electric universe'. During the final six months of 2005 approximately one-third of all domain names (the top five) were registered via this registrar. By the end of May 2006, it managed approximately 14.2 million domain names. As a 'best-of-breed' it is also North America’s largest shared website hosting provider. But when TheBigRetort tried to put a series of questions to its founder it met with a wall of silence - unusual considering its founder's usual retort: "If GoDaddy.com is anything, it is an outspoken company and I am an outspoken CEO." So why was Daddy being so evasive? First, a bit of blurb on founder B-o-b P-a-r-s-o-n-s.

Robert Parsons is the CEO and Chairman of GoDaddy. Prior to founding the company in 1997, he also founded Parsons technology. Bob and his then wife grew the software company out a basement kitchen. A decade later the pair sold it for many millions of dollars. Retirement did not sit well... Bob soon turned his attention to domain name registration. He had noted how expensive it was... And the entrepreneur was if anything the archangel of the low priced deal. He founded GoDaddy - a name that came out of the aether - and quickly established him (through dogged determination and chutzpah it must be acknowledged) as the Wizard of cut-price domains. At the age 19 he was a rifleman in the U.S. Marine Corps (1968 - 1970) and the recipient of several medals. He is also a Certified Public Accountant. He remains the titular head of GoDaddy. He and also wears an earring. He likes bikes as much as girls. (Godaddy girls that is. And if you saw them you would understand why.) But, to the nub of our Go Daddy rub...
......

In 2006 it was reported that GoDaddy planned to go public. Lehman Brothers was hired to handle the IPO. Prior to that date not much was known about the company's profitability. Go Daddy was a private company and its business was its business, however the S-1 filing was the first public scrutiny of its financial health... it revealed considerable net losses. With the books out in the open it became public knowledge that this had happened every year since the year of its inception. Under "Risks related to our Business" the filing also stated, '.... and may not be able to operate profitably or sustain positive cash flow in future periods.' As investors in GoDaddy's success, it was this that concerned us most. There were others...

GoDaddy planned to use the net proceeds received from the offering to repay approximately $7.2 million indebtedness (in addition to working capital etc). However, although the company was making year on year losses, it was, its founder later emphasised, also experiencing rapid growth.

At that time many wondered if Parsons himself might 'subdue his expressions' once the company went public. "He's one of the most outspoken CEOs in the industry, whose personal and professional leanings are never in doubt. That sort of divisive, outspoken approach may not gel quite as well with Wall Street investment bankers as it does with his blog audience," one online critic remarked. The offering hoped to raise more than 100 million dollars and value Go Daddy at 250 million dollars or more. But the IPO was abruptly pulled.

Dominic Jones later reported that a scrapped IPO is rarely a good thing. "It suggests the company being shopped is a lemon. Companies that pull their IPOs traditionally go off to some dark corner with their tails between their legs ... many observers might well have interpreted the news as Wall Street kicking another dog out to the curb."

However Parsons was never one for hiding in dark corners. (Unless it was in the rice fields of Nam, where it was thought wise to adopt such a position.) He later blogged that the submission was 'approved' by the SEC itself and that this assumption was wrong. There were three main reasons that he decided to pull the plug; (i) the Middle East conflict, interest rate jitters and tech stock weakness; (ii) lack of appreciation for GoDaddy’s cash generating power and, calling the financial media stupid, because none had studied the company's cash flow statements, he claimed (iii) that Daddy was not desperate and had generated significant operating cash flow during each reporting period.

Surprisingly Parsons claims that the submission had been 'approved' by the SEC. However, the S1 actually states: 'Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities regulator has approved or disapproved these securities or determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete.'

Oh Daddy... Bob may not realise it but any representation that suggests otherwise is actually 'criminal' and may make any claimant subject to a long stay at Guantanamo. (Mind you, as this is place he apparently approves of it may be most welcome.)

And that brings us to Cashparking...
.....

"EARN UP TO 80% REVENUE" "CASH PARKING - TURN YOUR PARKED DOMAINS INTO CASH"

According to the GoDaddy blurb it's easy with CashParking. 'Whether you have one domain or a growing portfolio, CashParking can turn those domains into a cash generator!' The offer is made via a number of Cashparking plans from which anyone buying a domain can

'get ready to share in parked domain revenue'. Really?

Bob Parsons himself, blind to any faults, directly boasts, ''Go Daddy is putting its reputation in the domain name industry to work for our customers so CashParking can provide the highest revenue share payouts, making for quick and easy income potential for domain holders from their parked domain names.'' Which leads to another... really?

GoDaddy itself earned $1.6 million from its own cashparking 'scheme'. But this was prior to sharing it with the persons who owned those domains. Now things are different and B-o-b wants to share his success... So why is it that when TheBigRetort invested in a portfolio of domains 'connoting the top five' we saw the dollars flooding out - not in? (In place of the two domains, TheBaseRate.com and LoanAiduk.com, was a little Sherlock Holmes sign, complete with magnifying glass, saying: This site is currently NOT available. (Emphasis GoDaddy's.)

What oh what had taken place? We wrote to find out....

Coming soon in TheBigRetort... the answer. (Visit NamePros for domain discussion and advice. NoDaddy.com for informed views on the company.)



.....

Sofa not so suite

TheBigRetort can reveal that a recent allergic epidemic that has been studied in Lahti, Finland, has found that being a dog - or a couch potato for that matter -may seriously damage your health. In fact, if that sofa has been made in China reclining in front of the telly may not be so 'suite'.

A Finnish study into the background to a recent epidemic that stretched the length and breadth of Britain has identified the substance that has caused agonising suffering in thousands of people. Chinese-made settees sold by Argos and Land of Leather have been named as the culprits of a violent irritant-related eczema, blisters, weeping and cracking.

After studying five patients the Finnish study concluded that the allergies related to a newly purchased chair or sofa. Furniture samples were analysed and compounds identified using a mass spectrum library and measured. The patients showed strong reactions to upholstery fabric samples and to dimethylfumarate, 'down to a level of 1 p.p.m. in the most severe case'.

Scientists concluded that the cause of the epidemic was likely to be contact allergy to the dimethylfumarate, a novel potent contact sensitiser. All sofas were traced to the same factory owned by Chinese firm 'Linkwise'. Apparently it had treated the furniture with 'a potent fungicide' to stop them going mouldy in storage. Customers have now been warned of the batch numbers affected with what is now termed "sofa dermatitis" over one year after the first outbreak.

So where was Trading Standards in all this?

A number of personal injury lawyers are currently trawling the Net in search of clients. In Wrexham a woman who purchased a brown Bari sofa from Argos was left with a severe rash to her buttocks. In another regions one victim came out with an allergic reaction; shortly after purchasing the sofa in May 2007 his symptoms included a painful rash on his back, thigh and hands. 'The distribution of his eczema coinciding with where he would sit at the end of the sofa.' A doctor later concluded that it was due to 'sofa dermatitis'.

Meanwhile 'Answers at Yahoo' suggested to a concerned pet owner that a 7-year old Yorkie was 'most likely having an allergic reaction to something she rubbed her face on outside.' But the dog (not pictured) may have identified the source of the epidemic some time back...

It developed a red rash like look around both eyes and face like a chemical burn. The dog's eyes were swollen and the skin around them bright pink. Although it was claimed by the dog's owner that the dog developed the symptoms after being out alone in the yard for just a few hours, its concerned owner informed Answers that it would later 'rub her face against the settee'. It now seems likely that the crafty canine was trying to tell its owner that the sofa was the cause of its irritation.
.....

When informed by the TheBigRetort that the source of the epidemic had finally been identified - almost a year after it began - the dog is alleged to have barked, 'Fang heavens.'

64.233.183.104 MP3

Have we entered an episode of Lost? Or are we simply that popular a publication that major conglomerates wish to cosy-up with we pond life? If so, perhaps it's time we started practising safer sex. Because when TheBigRetort gets rogered we prefer a condom and a smile, rather than a dot.con.

Why is it that practically every article we write appears to carry advertising for "MP3" and the ISP "64.233.183.104"? Complaints to "fronts" like PrivacyProtect.org (ON WHOM MORE LATER) - appear to go ignored. (This 'organisation' itself is shrouded in mystery.) And we are simply referred back to our domain name registrar where we are offered privacy... but at a price. In other words you pay we stop. Suspicious or what?

However, phew, UK law ensures that privacy does not have a dollar sign attached to it. In other words private details should, as far as human rights go, remain just that: p-r-i-v-a-t-e. So why is it that the registrants of domain names need to pay their registrars for that privacy? (Odd that, innit?)

However, we stroll too far down the path of righteousness. Privacy is not the thrust of our concerns. In our case a number of copyright articles are repeatedly hijacked by a person or persons selling MP3 and, although the headlines and body of the front text can be read, there is no story on the landing page, no link that acknowledges the fabulous BIGRETORT, just an MP3 'endorsement' - of sorts.

We say of sorts because it's downright dodgy. Certainly TheBigRetort would never endorse a product like MP3, or such an underhanded way of marketing it.

We conclude that this is obviously a dreadful product best avoided, peddled by a company that has little regard for copyright law or fair play - and one that needs its identity shield lifted.

In the forthcoming months we will be researching these cyber bloodsuckers and identity shield fronts... and lift the veil.

Alexa ranking

Since TheBigRetort's birth we have been known under a host of names; thebigretort.blogspot, mybigretort, myretort, etc. But have so many different e-monikers led to the dilution of traffic. If Alexa is anything to go by... then the answer is Yes.

According to the Amazon subsidiary, TheBigRetort.com receives no ranking whatsoever. Whilst thebigretort.blogspot.com reached the dizzy (or should that be lowly) heights of 10,707, 828.

The data also shows that 63,004 sites have linked in to us, and that we are based in India - which we are not. Hijacked, forgotten, or simply ignored?

Dell fixes problems it creates: For a price

There is nothing worse than writing a lengthy document than that moment, that split second, when the screen on your computer suddenly goes inexorably blank. You wonder if there has been a power cut... Until you realise that the computer you are using is a Dell Inspiron 1000. [So named because that's just about the amount of words you may be able to type before the screen fades to black.] It is a 'budget notebook' after all. Be warned...

When we encountered such a problem, Dell technical support instructed... 'empty the laptop of its battery, switch off the electricity, and to press the power on button for 10 seconds'. [It also asked us to fill in an online survey. As we could not get online that would, we said, be rather difficult.]

The call centre in India and the team was not to be dissuaded by the language barrier. There was a charge for getting the dead computer to recover, a service conducted over the phone, and one that we were grateful for. [In fact we wrote an article saying so - since removed - and one that should have left our investigative antennae quivering.]

Dell claimed zero liability as the Inspiron 1000 was out of warranty. Not true we said, your senior executives are jointly and severally liable and we will press our claim vigorously. (The warranty expiring does not discharge liability in the United Kingdom. But how about Nevada?)

Dell folded. It changed the battery (which had never worked when purchased), and the apparently dodgy hard drive too, and at no extra cost. (The power via the new battery lasts under an hour.) But, and this is what our complaint hinges on (couldn't resist the pun), the Inspiron 1000 problem still persisted, with the LCD screen going black, only this time threats of legal action aside, Dell wanted paying before doing any further tech stuff. And this time it wanted big bucks.

We were caught between a laptop and a faulty hinge. Closed down for a whole week - online - at least, TheBigRetort was left twiddling its fingers.

Until something rather curious came under our forensic scrutiny ...

Dell had returned the computer with one of its bolts missing. It was just a little plastic plug that was usually inserted on the left-hand side of the computer on its left hinge.

What we discovered

Surprisingly there were a number of complaints listed on the WorldWideWeb in regards to the Dell Inspiron 1000 'blank screen' problem - which centered around the left hand hinge of the LCD screen.

Coincidence or what?

The Dell Technical Support Denial

When confronted with our findings Dell technical support claimed that there were 'no (such) known issues' with the Inspiron 1000. In fact Dell repeatedly claimed that it had never heard of such a problem before. However, the Dell tech team did not comment on why the laptop had been returned with the missing left hinge plug, which is a coincidence. Instead, it did suggest that the problem could be any one of three things - and they would need paying for one or all of them.

But could it have been possible that the company knew about the problem but was ignoring it, due not only to a 'nice little earner' on unneeded 'repairs' but the mountain of liable claims that might follow the discovery (and this article)? Dell responded:

"After fully investigating the issues you have encountered, Dell has come to the following conclusion, there is no known issue with Inspiron 1000 as you claim. Dell is a company which strives to win with integrity and we are saddened by the fact that you felt that you we not provided the proper support. Once again we want to assure you of our total commitment to your satisfaction with our services and products, and apologize for not meeting up to your expectations on this occasion."

Not to be deterred we probed further, and asked Anu Meelu (Customer Relations/Legal team - UK & IRE Dell, Inc) what "investigation" it had undertaken?

Miss Meelu responded... "Your request of knowing (sic) about the investigation which I have gone by on (sic) the matter is a (sic) internal process, hence (sic) could give the give (sic) you the inside process. Your second question on Inspiron 1000 is (sic) little strange [rather like this response] to me as you claim you did so much of (sic) research on Insp 1000, as this is a stander (sic) step which is used to release flea power for all system irrespective of brand."

Ignore what will no doubt become infamously known as Dellspeak, or DellEnglish, or Dellgate, it is after all a world-wide brand, and we shall "give the give" (as Dell says). Let's instead concentrate on that 'flea power'? Just what is it?

"No it is not a Powerful Flea off you Cat," one online independent tech quips, "It is Power that is Left Between the Power Supply and Control Panel ( Power Button )." [Apparently there is still power in the computer when the power cord is switched off. After unplugging the computer and taking the battery out hold the Power Button in for 5 seconds to dispel it, switch it back on, and... pay Dell $80. ]

But what about that "investigation" we hear you ask... Actually, TheBigRetort did not understand much of what had been written by Ms Meelu. Indeed we wondered if our emails could have been intercepted by the wrong person. Dell responded via Ms Meelu, a legal "representative".

"I apologies (sic) for the error from my end. [Note she does not say which end.] Your request of knowing (sic) about the investigation which I have gone by (sic) on the matter is a (sic) internal process, hence could not (sic) give you the details of the internal process. But just to help you more (sic) on this , it is confirmed by the technical team that there is no such know (sic) issue mentioned with insp 1000 as you claim. Please let me know If I can be of anymore help to you on this matter."

So, is that clear?

Is it possible that English may 'not be your first language' we asked. After all Ms Meelu was offering a press statement on behalf of a computer conglomerate. She clarified (kinda?) But 'no such "know" issue mentioned'? A random sample of Dell customers, easily Googled, had this to say in their online posts:

Valerie19 posted as far back as 2005. "We got a Dell Inspiron 1000 laptop for my son at Christmas. The LCD display is no longer working. Nothing appears when it boots or runs. I can connect an external monitor and that looks fine."

Sound familiar?

Then there was... a poster styled Jakedeg who purchased his Inspiron in December 2004, and immediately had problems... he would turn the computer on and get 'dark screen'. He called Dell when the computer was still under warranty. But this did not assist matters.

"The tech support person I spoke to told me to try a couple of "quick fix" solutions that he gave me, which worked. But every so often when I would turn on the computer I would get a dark screen, so I would power it down and reboot like the tech support person told me to and when the computer would turn back on I could usually see the screen again."

Unfortunately the 'problem' occurred again. He then wrote, "Now I'm being told I need a new LCD, and in addition Dell is telling me that because the 90 day warranty expired, I have to pay out-of-pocket for a new LCD. I spoke with numerous reps and supervisors and expressed my dissatisfaction because not only is this a relatively new computer, but it is a problem that I started having and for which I called to get fixed when it was still under warranty, and tech support did not give me a permanent fix or offer to replace the LCD back in January, when it was still under warranty."

A case of now Dell fixes it now Dell don't?

Dell wanted $350 to repair the, err, 'problem' of a computer which Dell later claimed to TheBigRetort there were 'no known issues'.

No known issues?

Another poster, roger398, also wrote of the problem in that same year. "We bought the 1000 for our daughter last summer as a graduation present, and the LCD failed to work after only a few months at most. We have since been using an external monitor as well, but I have gotten the LCD to work twice after fiddling with connections under the screen's bezel (I did all this after the notebook was out of warranty). The screen worked fine for several hours just the other day after I checked connections, then I turned off the machine, closed the lid, reopened the lid, booted it, and the LCD failed."

Roger homed in on the problem. One that Dell claimed it had 'no known issues' with. (Or conveniently ignored.) "It's my impression that a physical connection might be to blame for my troubles, with opening and closing the lid causing a connection to loosen, causing the blank screen."

Roger thought that this might be "coincidence". It was what he then went on to say that contradicts Dell's claim further. And condemns it.

"I contacted Dell tech support and then the out-of-warranty department to see what it would cost for a fix and decided to look for alternatives (local computer guy?) to this high cost service. The bottom line is that I, too, am very disappointed with this product--and with Dell."
And Roger's not alone.

"Dell Inspiron 1000 Screen Problems" has become the new legend. (Don't believe us, Google it.)

Ben at experts-exchange.com. "I have a Dell Inspiron 1000 that would randomly shut down... I discovered that when you move the LCD screen even an inch, the laptop screen would shut down, and I would have to reboot. I turned off all of the Power Saving Features in XP, but it still does this. Bad LCD, or is there something else that is causing this?"

Indeed there is... only Dell refuses to acknowledge it.

Coolkatz321 in thetechlounge.com complained; "...I'm not sure if it needs to be replaced or if there's just a loose cable inside. Once the computer starts up, it's fine; however, if the monitor is moved, then screen goes black. It seems to be a fixable problem," Fixable if Dell gets its bucks. So is the Dell Inspiron blank screen problem solvable?

A person also posting in thetechlounge.com had found the same problem... and a solution. This is how he did it...

"Ardnek" reseated all of the video connections and then reassembled the laptop. But the LCD didn't turn on at all. However intrepid Ardnek took the laptop apart again. He reseated all of the connections. But to no avail. He decided to replace the flex video cable. Unfortunately Dell didn't (conveniently) carry the part. (Dell has the part if you want to send in your laptop - at a price of course.)

Not to be thwarted by Dell and its machinations, Ardnek, obviously a bit of a computer geek, in his words: 'reseated all of the connections, and uncrinked the flex video cable; however, this time I booted the computer back up before reassembling it and the screen came to life.'

After this he reassembled the computer forensically. 'Piece by piece' he checked at each stage whether the screen would still come on. "It worked until I reattached the metal plate that covers the motherboard, fan, etc. I noticed that this metal plate severely pinches the video flex cable as it comes up to go to the LCD and so I assumed that this poor design was responsible for the black outs when moving the screen."

Remarkably Ardnek had not only discovered where the problem lay - the one that Dell denies all knowledge of - but, more importantly, how to 'fix it'.

He took a pair of metal snips and cut out a tab for the cable to freely move through without being pinched and then covered the sharp metal edges with electrician's tape. And the laptop worked perfectly. He advised, "Fortunately for me, the short in the flex video cable was mild enough that simply straightening it out was enough to fix it. However, for others, you might have to replace this cable (if you can find one). I would recommend cutting out a tab in the metal cover even if you replace the cable so as to avoid future shorts. One final note: the plastic outer housing still requires the cable to be squished a bit as it goes to the LCD but it isn't nearly as severe and damaging as the metal plate."

When presented with these findings (a few amongst the many), Dell responded:
"You are free to take this up further (sic). I have already given you Dell (sic) final stance on the matter. Answering your question I have already mentioned in the mail before that (sic), it’s been confirmed by the technical team in Dell (sic) if we ever had such (sic) issue with the product in Question. If you want I can even send (sic) the same stance in writing to your physical address as if (sic) you want to take this up with Trading Standards they will need something in writing from Dell on this. If you wish to discuss the matter any further , please let me know the preferred time when we can talk on this matter as we don’t communicate through mails. [We wonder why?] Our stance on the issue remains (sic) same."

Dellspeak if ever.

(great-remortgage-offers.com is for sale here.)

Queen banished from coins

Are there plans to banish Queen Elizabeth II from new coins? Does Britain's small change herald change? Put simply, is the United Kingdom headed towards a republic?

Monetarists may think so... News of the first major design change in English coinage since decimalisation is barely moments away, and TheBigRetort has stumbled across some breaking news. The Queen's head may be banished from the front of the new coins.

The Royal Mint design has in the past carried the monarch's visage but is it possible that the seven newly-minted coins may change... radically?

There have been hints that 'a contemporary take on traditional heraldry reflecting the nation's rich history' may be found on the reverse of the coins, but what about the face?

In a radio interview given today, the Royal Mint let slip that the 86 million coins in circulation with the Queen's face, 'will be around for some time yet' - on old coins.

Up to now it was believed that the Queen's face would be kept on the front of all seven newly-minted coins, so what does the future hold the monarchy?

Eurostar price-fix-scandal

When it comes to offering 'best deal' holiday packages to Paris does Eurostar make the grade, or does it have tunnel vision? TheBigRetort discovers... la vérité.

The non-stop London to Paris Eurostar train tickets offer we purchased via the telephone were priced at £204. The 'best deal' we were assured for our short-break by Eurostar representatives. Guaranteed low prices? We later discovered that the same train journey sold to us was in fact advertised for £50 less. (See Eurostar retort below.)

In addition, our booking formed part of a 'package' deal, 1 adult and 1 child, (later joined by two additional adults at the tres agreable Hotel De L'Ocean in Rue Mayran, right in the heart of Paris and well worth a weekend. )

So, was it the best deal?

The reservation for our additional guest needed to be changed to one night instead of two. However, the amount returned to the credit card for the cancellation was not the same as the amount paid for the additional night. Who had pocketed the difference?

Eurostar informed us that the difference was a 'penalty' levied by the hotels for the, err, 'amendment'. Which seemed strange... Intrepid travellers to France, where we are known as Zee Big Red Tart, we had never encountered such a penalty. Neither had we experienced an 'additional' charge for a child residing in the same room. A charge of £23.52 (plus taxes) a night, which again we were informed was levied by the hotels.

In fact the French don't pay or charge such a levy. "No such penalty is charged," they informed us. Adding, "There is no extra guest charge for a 6-year old either," which was intriguing.

A case of less is more with Eurostar offers surely... So what did Eurostar have to say? Did it come clean and return our Euros? Or did Euro simply keep them?

When presented with our findings Eurostar's press office (e-v-e-n-t-u-a-l-l-y) wrote back: "Due to the complexity of your email I am just checking the final details with various people across the business. I hope to have a comprehensive answer for you within a day or so. Sincere apologies for the delay." Following which... more online delay followed.

But what 'complexity'? What 'fine detail'? And when would we receive that 'comprehensive answer'?

To recap...tickets booked via the telephone through Eurostar were more expensive than those offered online, the hotel did not levy charge for reducing a room from two nights to one, and French hotels do not usually charge for a child staying in the same room as adults. Eurostar does, blaims the French... and pockets the difference.

At least that's what we decided to put to Eurostar.... but not without incident.

The question was really a simple one. Based on what Eurostar claimed, later contradicted by the hotel, either we had highlighted it selling porkies or caught it going down the wrong track. Something TheBigRetort would have thought that the operator would have been keen to address.

Eurostar has a press office response time infinitely longer than its journey times to Paris... by foot, but press officer Tom Parker had previously informed us that he was eager to 'resolve the matter'. Be that as it may, it was almost as if there were invisible leaves covering the international train operator's muddy tracks. In fact a disembodied voice may have bellowed that there will be either a long delay or a cancellation... and there was

Parker claimed that accommodation, which was booked through eurostar.com, is actually provided by WWTE, a subsidiary of Expedia. It has 'a separate arrangement with the hotel concerned,' he wrote. And as a result Eurostar 'could not comment'.

Neither could Eurostar comment on the hotel's cancellation policy, in other words one night reduced to two. (Hotel De L'Ocean claimed it simply charged for one night with no penalty. )

Neither could it comment on the additional child levy that the hotel also claimed it did not add. And neither did it add up for Eurostar.

"We will however follow this matter up with WWTE and ensure that there were no improper charges made in error in this instance," Parker assured. Unfortunately as we did not hear further, we assume that Eurostar also felt that there were 'no improper charges made in error' - just, dare we say it, a slight of hand worthy of a card shark camped outside Kings Cross Station.

To be fair, Parker claimed that when he checked the online price of a return ticket on the same trains he found 'exactly' the same price. Although his search was conducted after our own, he could not explain the difference 'at this stage'. He never got back to us. TheBigRetort can only conclude that he could not explain the difference at any stage.

So, thinking of travelling with Eurostar on a 'best deal'? Arrête! Think twice.

J D WETHERSPOON: THEYSEEYOUPEETV

Shock! Horror! Crap! George Orwell's 1984 is now at a pub near you. But is pub chain J D Wetherspoon taking the piss? TheBigRetort investigates.

Customers caught short whilst visiting a pub toilet in Brockley, South-east London may be excused if they have the strange sensation of being 'watched' as they go about their (once usually private) business. And it is not paranoia. Now, as they glance up at the ceiling they will realise the astonishing truth, then wet themselves. For, at the urinals, John Thomas in hand, there it is, on the ceiling, watching... a camera.

Surely not we hear you say... but it's yes.

We immediately visited the offending pub and confirmed our worst fears, following which we spoke to a Wetherspoon's spokesman. The following is not for the reader with a nervous disposition, a full bladder, or for anyone who has had a night on the old Vindaloo.

Surveillance report of society gone mad. Surveillance report of society gone mad. Surveillance...The pub... the Brockley Barge, London SE4. The location... the male toilet. The time... now.

"Most CCTV in Wetherspoons pubs are part of the licence... We believe that cameras are something that customers feel safer with," the Wetherspoon's spokesman confided.

What... in the loo?

"They are not pointed at the urinals. They are only pointed at washbasins."

Really?

"Yeah. If any customer made enquiries, they would be told, quite rightly, that they only point at handbasins."

Why?

(He paused.) "So that people feel safer."

So why isn't there a camera in the ladies loo too?

"Isn't there...? Well, I don't know about that particular pub... but if there isn't it's because the decision is made by the manager."

[So the manager only likes looking at the boys...?] Who looks at them?

"They're not looked at by members of staff. The only people who would have it (the footage) is the police. There are other pubs where this is the case. We're quite open about them. They are only there so that the police can watch."

How long are the images kept?

"I'm not sure."

[So there you have it... the police are the only ones allowed to watch. Whilst the images in the bar and outside the pub can be seen on a monitor the loo images are not shown to the general public. That makes it okay then.]

But are they also focused on the urinal, or, worse still... the loo? (After all it's impossible to say where they are pointed.) Couldn't shit be going on under the watchful of the law?

"At the washbasins," J D spokesperson was eager to assure.

But... why?

"So that they can see what's going on."

Err, well, what can 'they'.... see... at the washbasin?

"Things." (Presumably the washing of hands ceremony that follows visits to the loo.)

But what if any individual is hellbent in dealing with shit - and that kind of thing - and knows that the camera is only pointed at the washbasin, and that the images won't be viewed until, possibly, much later by the Peelice - Sorry we meant 'police' - wouldn't they go into the cubicles, or, dare we suggest, stand at the urinals and, err, pretend?

"It, err... acts as a... deterrent."

[And that's certainly true. It's the last time we spend a penny with JD Wetherspoon.]

Changing LINKS

Roads discovered on planet Mercury

A recent flyby of the planet Mercury from 124 miles (200 kilometers) above the surface has revealed an impact crater with more than 50 twisting roads radiating from its center. But could it be signs of life?

"It's a real mystery, a very unexpected find," said Louise Prockter, an instrument scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which built the probe for the $446 million NASA mission. She said whatever event created them "is anybody's guess," but suggested perhaps a volcanic intrusion beneath the planet's surface led to the formation of the 'troughs'.

However, the claim will fail to impress the 'life out there' brigade. "They are obviously pathways created by a not too technological civilisation," Noj Luap Nagrom a scientist at Toxteth University astronomy programme claimed.

Feelings that are trumpted by other findings...

Earth has a magnetic field surrounding it that acts as a protective bubble shielding the surface from cosmic rays and solar storms enabling life to gain a foothold.

Astonishingly a peculiar element of Mercury is its magnetic field... added to which the planet has an 'atmosphere'.

Scientists are said to be "shocked," having pored over more than 1,200 new images sent by seven instruments on the probe of Mercury's surface."I couldn't sleep at all," said Robert Strom, a MESSENGER science team member who also worked on the Mariner 10 mission. "I've waited 30 years for this."

Does this mean we have at last found life on another planet, and within our solar system? It certainly would raise tempratures.