wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
wrote
michael adams wrote
The exact same item is fashionable, then not, then
fashionable, etc. Just a way to get people to throw out
what they bought and buy again. Why choose to follow it.
And while its certainly feasible to have cars that
are used for say 40 years, its less clear that that
is actually very desirable given the significant
improvements we have seen in cars over that time.
agreed
Same with say kitchens, there have been very significant
improvements in kitchens over say 50 years, most obviously
with microwave ovens, convection ovens, bread machines,
dishwashers. specialised appliances for making the sort of stuff
that some people eat like pies and toasted sandwiches etc.
New types of appliances yes, the fitted part of kitchens no.
I don't agree with that. The decent modern fitted
drawers with decent modern slides and that sort
of thing leaves what we had 70 years ago for dead.
I found both functioned ok
The decent modern slides work a lot better with the bigger
drawers that have the major cooking vessels in them etc.
And allow you to have massive great 6' wide very shallow
drawers that allow you to see all the unusual cooking tools
at a glance rather than having to remember which are in
which small drawer etc too.
Even 1930s kettles, toasters etc are close to as good as new,
Don't agree with that either. The 1930s toasters that
I used were those ones with a door on each side which
you had to keep checking if the toast was done and
you had to toast each side separately as well. My current
popup up toaster leaves it for dead convenience wise.
sounds earlier than 30s
Nope, you could still buy those in the 40s and 50s.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ter2Closed.jpg
That one looks suspiciously like you can still buy it today given the
lettering on the top.
http://www.modip.ac.uk/artefact/aibdc-005467
clearly says it was buyable in the 30s and 40s
and far more reliable & durable.
I don't agree with the toaster. And I don't care with the jug.
almost anything thats lasted 80 years is
I didn't say it lasted for 80 years. The elements in the toasters certainly
didn't.
Same with armchairs. I have some bent wood leather armchairs
where the frame is just as good as it ever was, but the chair that
I sit in most of the time doesn't last anything like 50 years, the
leather is worn out well before that.
That's solvable,
Nope.
but something I won't go into here now
not thinking today are you
Wrong.
That is very arguable indeed with stuff like toasters.
You can make a case that it makes more sense
to do toasters so they last for say 10 years than
to do toasters that last for 100 years and can
be repaired when anything fails.
Basically it is LESS wasteful to get someone in
china to make you a new one than to have a
fancy system for supplying parts for the 100
year life toaster. The production of the parts
is likely to involve exactly the same as the
production of the whole toaster etc.
If you want a toaster to last 100, give it
elements that seldom fail. Its doable -
But you have to be able to replace
the ones that don't last that long.
have to no, there's more than 1 way to do it
Anyway replaceability of elements isnt that
hard to design in
User replaceable ones are.
no Rod, its simple. Its also simple to make elements much longer lived.
Not toaster elements that all last for more than 100 years.
It costs more to have someone in the west
replace the element than it costs to get a
chinese person to make a whole new toaster.
hence you dont take that approach if you want it to last a century
It wasn't known that we would end up with that
situation a century ago. In fact it was assumed at
that time that it would always be economic to
replace the element if it failed.
And it isn't even possible to have a smoke detector
in a toaster that will reliably turn the toaster off
and will last for more than 100 years anyway.
though toasters would be low on
my priority list for centurification.
It is one rather obvious example of
the 'waste' you are talking about.
sure, but the trivial end of it
But the same applies to all the other appliances
that are so commonly used in kitchens now.
Its true of microwave ovens and convection ovens too.
they're far bigger wastes than a toaster
They don't get replaced as often as toaster. My wall oven
and hotplates are more than 40 years old. The wall oven
has had at least 3 elements which are trivially easy to
change, the element plugs in and is easily swapped from
within the oven itself, you don't even have to take all the
racks out to change it.
Its certainly completely trivial to plug in a new element
in the big wall oven and griller and I have done that
a few times with the oven, never needed to with the grill.
its beyond most end users
Only because they don't realise how easy that is to do.
Its actually easier than changing a light bulb essentially
because it's a lot more solid and robust and much
easier to get to than all except a desk light.
Yes, its possible to design an incandescent bulb
to last 100 years in normal use, but it makes more
sense to design them the other way and replace
them more frequently than that and get a much
better light from them.
an exceptional example
Not really. Its true of all light technologys.
which are an exceptional example.
Not when they are so common they aren't.
Other kitchen goods 30 years old are
still perfectly good technology-wise.
Yes, most obviously with wall ovens and hotplates.
Many far older are also ok,
Not many on the far older claim.
but not nukes.
And even with non nukes, we have seen these show up
which leave full ovens for dead for the smaller stuff.
https://www.bigdiscount.com.au/17l-c..._UAxoCXSXw_wcB
While they don't last anything like as long as full sized
wall ovens do, they save so much electricity that you
end up with a lot less waste that way than with full
wall ovens for everything you put in an oven.
If I did design such a thing, I'd want it to have
a smoke detector plus cutout to avoid fires,
But its far from clear how feasible it is to have
one of those that will last for 100 years.
is it?
Have fun listing even a single example of a
smoke detector that will reliably detect smoke
for 100 years and turn a toaster sized load off.
Ionisation, Americium halflife 432 years.
That isn't what fails.
Optical detectors too with washable covers
That isn't what fails either.
where most do have basically
what they need even with houses
depends how you define need.
No, not in the modern first and second world. Hardly
anyone doesn't have a viable house anymore and
even those in squats are basically just doing that
because of the insane prices of houses today.
And it doesn't really make any difference
whether its owned or rented anyway.
It does,
Not for the economy of a country.
obviously people owning houses is a wealthier
situation than renting rooms in shared houses
But someone obviously owns what they are renting.
and more difference whether its shared digs or not
The only difference there is that you
aren't related to those you share it with.
lol. You really arent thinking today.
Even sillier than you usually manage.
The top 2 killers, heart disease & cancer, kill 50% of the population.
But you have to die of something.
Of those deaths the general concensus is that 50%
are due to personal choice, 50% other factors.
General consensus is irrelevant and those
are much too round numbers to be real.
umm ok
That's just the top 2.
Which wouldn't be affected by spending more on the NHS.
ummmm ok
Go ask some people how they'd improve
their lives if they had a big lump sum.
But its clear from those that do get big lump
sums all the time, the lottery etc winners, that
that hardly ever does improve their lives at all.
So folk unsmart enough to play lottery
are hopeless with money. No news there.
Just as true of all big lump sums.
Its pretty obvious not all money makers wee it up the wall
Money makers are quite different to big lump sums.
Money isn't resources. We have different words for a reason.
it buys resources.
That isn't usually what is done with it.
It pays for resources to be dug up, made, etc
That isn't usually what is done with it.
everything to do with the insane way that
the housing market has ended up now.
Trivially fixable in the same way as
was done after the war had ended.
politics stops it
Its public attitudes that stops that happening.
politics determine school content
Bull****. And school content is irrelevant to what
was done about housing after the war anyway.
If it wasn't, there would be nothing to stop someone
setting up a new party with that policy getting elected
to do it.
there is nothing stopping folk.
Just the fact that that new party isn't going to be the govt.
Even on issues like say being part of the EU, there
just aren't enough who feel that way that will get
a new party into govt on that issue. It hasn't even
happened in Scotland.
The absolute vast bulk of what gets spent is just
****ed against the wall keeping everyone going,
fed, housed, transported, entertained etc etc etc.
food, housing, transport is useful. Entertainment not so
People have to have something to do when they arent
working or sleeping etc. That's why movies and TV and
radio took off.
Maybe.
No maybe about it.
I can think of much better options.
Most clearly feel differently on that.
Anyway they dont have to spend so much money on it.
But they choose to anyway.
they live at home with parents,
Just like plenty always did.
no, there's been a huge rise of it here
Not compared with what happened
say between the wars and before that.
or live in a room in shared houses.
Just like plenty always did.
again a big rise
Again, not compared with what happened
say between the wars and before that.
comparison to pre-war conditions
is immaterial on both counts
Nope, it shows that what we might well have see
is a blip after the war that is no more than a blip
and nothing to start hyperventilating about.
The average young adult now has no
likelihood of being able to buy one.
Doesn't really matter if you are renting
or paying off a mortgage anyway.
and that is due to a different problem
entirely, the outrageous price of them.
which is due to govt policy
Nope, it can't be govt policy because its what
has happened everywhere, right thruout the
entire modern first and second world now.
same policy trend, for ever tighter
control, ever more red tape,
That isn't the reason for the immense rise in the
cost of houses and isn't seen everywhere either.
Sure it is.
Nope.
I worked out I could build a tiny house for 5k
+ land cost 10k if it werent for endless red tape.
That isn't the reason normal houses are the price they are.
much of which isnt really needed
Sure. But we don't see the sort of
obscene slums we used to see either.
Most of BR, PP, greenbelts, AONB, CAs
etc are not about slum avoidance
But much of what you are allowed to do is.
ha. The professionals have barely a clue how
to motivate overweight people to get healthy.
Lots of people have solved that problem.
More accurately they never had that problem.
I see your brain's gone to sleep
Nope, they just don't get overweight
so don't have a problem to solve.
Researchers can start by looking at how.
Don't need any research on that, you shovel
less calories into your mouth than you burn.
your brain's gone to sleep
The record's stuck.
It sounds basic, but health professionals
are stuck in denial, head up arse on this.
Easy to claim. How odd that no one
world wide does it any differently.
your brain's gone to sleep
The record's stuck.
Its epidemic.
And more research isn't going to change that.
identifying what works normally does
We have known what works for more than a century now,
you shovel less calories into your mouth than you burn.
your brain's gone to sleep
The record's stuck.
/All/ the top 10 killers kill large numbers of us
Yes, but it you have to die of something.
but not prematurely
Depends on how you define prematurely.
well, from readily avoidable & treatable diseases
**** all die of that in the modern first and second world anymore.
Its been known for a long time now that you will live
longer on a starvation diet. Whether that is how anyone
much wants to live is a separate matter entirely.
immaterial
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
Researching zero calorie cake,
Not even possible.
I don't agree at all.
With something that people will prefer to the normal cake it is.
not the point
Corse it's the point, if it isn't as good
or better, few will choose to eat it.
Some is a great start. Better can be developed later.
Didn't work like that with water.
There's a reason for that.
We haven't even been able to come up with a
perfect zero calorie sugar substitute after having
tried to do that for more than half a century now.
we have several zero calorie sweeteners.
None of which are PERFECT.
nothing is, so what
So that is the reason sugar continues to be used.
nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Bull****.
Sugar is a cheap bulker for factory made foods.
Its also essential in stuff like home made
marmalade and beer. Doesn't work without it.
That nut was cracked long ago
Must be why we never use sugar in anything.
again thats addressable
Not in any feasible way it isn't.
brain gone to sleep again
Record's stuck.
Because its impossible to produce a
zero calorie food that is even better
than the real thing.
If it was possible we wouldn't have an obesity problem.
adequate comes first,
We've had that for ever now with drink, its called water.
food rodders, food.
Bull**** gutless, bull****.
Its unlikely that spending more
will make any difference now.
I totally disagree
But have no evidence for that disagreement.
theres a limit to how much I'm gonna type in 1 day
**** all to type in a wikipedia link.
QALY based rationing is just one aspect of it
Doesn't happen in most health care systems.
Anyone who could actually produce zero calorie
food that was even better than the real thing
would get stinking rich so fast that they wouldn't
know what hit them. The reason that hasn't
happened is because it isn't even possible.
cost is the issue.
It clearly isn't with a zero calorie drink.
Otherwise barenaked zero calorie noodles would be a bigger hit
I don't believe that given that zero calorie
drinks have been around for millennia now.
that's cos your brain gone to sleep
You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.
Its certainly possible to design and produce say a
toaster that will last for 100 years fine, and it likely
wouldn't cost more than say double what a decent
toaster costs today, its obvious that there isn't much
point in going that route for the manufacturers.
you dont think one could be made
with less than 10x as much material?
It isn't the material that is the main thing wasted.
10x as much material & 10x as much labour
then. A decent toaster doesnt require that much.
It isn't even possible to do a toaster with a smoke
detector that will hardly ever fail in 100 years.
It is with cutlery, crockery, etc etc etc but not
with toasters or cars or kitchens etc etc etc.
doable with those bar cars
Which hardly anyone chooses to have for a car.
that makes no sense
Your original about bar cars never did.
Dualits sell, they're the closest to that I can think of.
And they don't last for anything like 100 years.
they managed 50 ok, so arent a bad place to start.
But most don't buy them. There's a reason for that.
not the point.
Corse it's the point. If few will buy it, very little waste will be
saved.
lord youre slow.
We'll see...
All products follow a development course that
starts with it being possible, and usually pricey.
Bull**** on that last with most of what comes out of china.
And I don't believe its even possible
with a smoke detecting toaster anyway.
Just begin by doing it. Hone it,
cheapen it, popularise it later
Easier said than done with zero calorie drinks.
???
We honed it by making it completely safe and clean,
cheapened it so much that in some cases it isn't even
charged for by volume, and never did work out how
to popularise it enough to see most drink nothing
but it with water.
If few are interested in buying it with a toaster,
you won't have any way of popularising it.
brain gone asleep again
Broken record, as always when you can't dispute the point made.
I don't know of any 100 year old houses that
I'd prefer to live in than my passive solar that I
designed and built myself on a bare block of land.
Theyre still highly valuable
Both do the same job
One does it much better than the other does.
they do the same job, that much is pretty obvious
You can say that about a tent or a van.
Employment is the big excuse for the waste.
Its not an excuse, it's the reason.
Employ people to do something useful
We do that too, most obviously with education.
But that doesn't provide enough employment
in modern first and second world economys.
it does when folk stop ****ing their money
up the wall & spend it on more useful things
People spend **** all on what they **** up the wall.
really.
Yes, really.
From what I've seen, apart from rent or mortgage most of the rest of most
people's spend is wasted on waste/entertainment in one way or another.
Pity about the food, car, moving around/petrol etc etc etc.
A look at the local waste disposal site and how much
of the stuff works perfectly can partly confirm that.
**** all of it works perfectly.
Begin by educating people about money.
They aren't interested. Nothing you can do about that.
Actually I do.
Fraid not.
dumb boy
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there.
Once again start by finding out what the successes have done.
Most people arent interested. Nothing you can do about that.
too foolish. Here ends the discussion
Yep, even you have noticed you have dug yourself a
hole that even you can't work out how to get out of.