Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now
there's a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the implicit
corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.


.....that's a starter

Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash ********...that
you like..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now there's
a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the implicit
corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.


....that's a starter

Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash ********...that
you like..


Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by. Most are less than
one watt - yet people are made to feel guilty by using stand-by. (my 5 year
old TV is 0.7 watts on stand-by.)

In article , john.plant90
@ntlworld.com says...
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by.

It's not just the telly though. The combination of telly, DVD and Set
Top Box drew nearly 60W when "off". The chief vilain was the STB, which
gobbles power even when on standby. They all go off on a wall switch
now.

Likewise the stack of stuff behind the computer. Two computers, two
printers, two monitors, two reading lamps with transformers, two sets of
speakers, router, HiFi. It was drawing nearly 100W on standby before I
fitted a night switch.

--
Skipweasel.
Never knowingly understood.

In article ,
Skipweasel writes:
In article , john.plant90
@ntlworld.com says...
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by.

Old ones, yes (and more).
Just checked a 20+ year old 14" colour portable, and it's
8W on standby. It will be going to the tip when analogue
is switched off.

It's not just the telly though. The combination of telly, DVD and Set
Top Box drew nearly 60W when "off". The chief vilain was the STB, which
gobbles power even when on standby. They all go off on a wall switch
now.

Most TV's are designed to be sold into many countries.
Since some countries have very strict limits on standby
power (i.e. less than 1W), most TV's are manufactured to
those standards, and we benefit even though there is no
such requirement in this country. A 2 year old Panasonic
DVB LCD I just measured at something like 0.5W standby.

STB's on the other hand are more country-specific, so
there's been no incentive to produce efficient models for
the UK. Many don't actually reduce power at all on standby.

Likewise the stack of stuff behind the computer. Two computers, two
printers, two monitors, two reading lamps with transformers, two sets of
speakers, router, HiFi. It was drawing nearly 100W on standby before I
fitted a night switch.

I suspect your 60W and 100W figures are way off, but the
point is still valid. There are many crappy wall-warts
around nowadays which waste more energy than they deliver.
There are also some newer ones with extremely low power
wastage when unloaded, which I've noticed on some laptops
and phone chargers, almost certainly driven by the
requirements of one or more of the countries they're sold
in to.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Skipweasel writes:
In article , john.plant90
@ntlworld.com says...
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by.

Old ones, yes (and more).
Just checked a 20+ year old 14" colour portable, and it's
8W on standby. It will be going to the tip when analogue
is switched off.

It's not just the telly though. The combination of telly, DVD and Set
Top Box drew nearly 60W when "off". The chief vilain was the STB, which
gobbles power even when on standby. They all go off on a wall switch
now.

Most TV's are designed to be sold into many countries.
Since some countries have very strict limits on standby
power (i.e. less than 1W), most TV's are manufactured to
those standards, and we benefit even though there is no
such requirement in this country. A 2 year old Panasonic
DVB LCD I just measured at something like 0.5W standby.

STB's on the other hand are more country-specific, so
there's been no incentive to produce efficient models for
the UK. Many don't actually reduce power at all on standby.

Likewise the stack of stuff behind the computer. Two computers, two
printers, two monitors, two reading lamps with transformers, two sets of
speakers, router, HiFi. It was drawing nearly 100W on standby before I
fitted a night switch.

I suspect your 60W and 100W figures are way off, but the
point is still valid. There are many crappy wall-warts
around nowadays which waste more energy than they deliver.
There are also some newer ones with extremely low power
wastage when unloaded, which I've noticed on some laptops
and phone chargers, almost certainly driven by the
requirements of one or more of the countries they're sold
in to.

So what?

Skipweasel writes:

It's not just the telly though. The combination of telly, DVD and Set
Top Box drew nearly 60W when "off". The chief vilain was the STB, which
gobbles power even when on standby. They all go off on a wall switch
now.

Likewise the stack of stuff behind the computer. Two computers, two
printers, two monitors, two reading lamps with transformers, two sets of
speakers, router, HiFi. It was drawing nearly 100W on standby before I
fitted a night switch.

I find that my house needs rather more than 100W of heating for much
of the year. Conservation of energy, and all that ...

Paul
--
Paul Leyland | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Dept. of Genetics, Cambridge University | the English way.
Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EH, UK | The time is gone, the song is over.
Tel: +44-1223-333963 Fax: +44-1223-333992 | Thought I'd something more to say.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:20:56 UTC, "John"
wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now there's
a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the implicit
corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.


....that's a starter

Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash ********...that
you like..


Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by. Most are less than
one watt - yet people are made to feel guilty by using stand-by. (my 5 year
old TV is 0.7 watts on stand-by.)

And that TVs are not on standby 24/7 anyway...some of the time they are
actually switched on and in use!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 27 Dec 2007, 19:11, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:20:56 UTC, "John"
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now there's
a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the implicit
corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.
....that's a starter
Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash ********...that
you like..
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by. Most are less than
one watt *- yet people are made to feel guilty by using stand-by. (my 5 year
old TV is 0.7 watts on stand-by.)
And that TVs are not on standby 24/7 anyway...some of the time they are
actually switched on and in use!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
* *http://www.diybanter.com- Hide quoted text -

The most important thing is to create a conservation economy,
exemplified to great degree in cam.misc, and, may I say, despite its
often adversarial and bitchy nature, latent in wreck.org.mensa.
Education is the key, and where it takes hold, people begin to learn
to address local issues and manage and interact with what they have
got and can do now. Though not the only role, Heaven forbid that, the
role of the Universities is to encourage ''missionaries', by which I
mean people who want to make a difference by imparting knowledge and
skills where the resources exist but not the know-how to exploit
them!
--
'foolsrushin.'

foolsrushin wrote:
On 27 Dec 2007, 19:11, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:20:56 UTC, "John"
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Feel free to add...
1. CFL lightbulbs.
2. Taxing 4x4s out of existence.
3. Recycling paper and glass.
4. Prince Charles.
5. Greenpeace.
6. FOE.
7. Windmills
8. Speed humps
9. Bicycles.
10. Compulsory vegetarianism. (compulsory homosexuality might: Now there's
a thought)
11. God.
12. Al Gore.
13. Switching off your 5W telly overnight.
14. Biofuel.
15. Hydrogen fuel.
16. Pretending climate change isn't happening.
17. Accepting that it is, but denying it's man made, with the implicit
corollary that that means nothing need/can be done about it.
18. Saving the whale/great crested newt/lesser spotted amoeba/...add
anything you like here.
19. Wave power.
20. Solar energy.
21. Banning aeroplanes.
22. Banning fox hunting.
....that's a starter
Add any more items of particularly pernicious greenwash ********...that
you like..
Are there really Tellies that use 5 watts on stand-by. Most are less than
one watt - yet people are made to feel guilty by using stand-by. (my 5 year
old TV is 0.7 watts on stand-by.)
And that TVs are not on standby 24/7 anyway...some of the time they are
actually switched on and in use!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com- Hide quoted text -

The most important thing is to create a conservation economy,
exemplified to great degree in cam.misc, and, may I say, despite its
often adversarial and bitchy nature, latent in wreck.org.mensa.
Education is the key, and where it takes hold, people begin to learn
to address local issues and manage and interact with what they have
got and can do now. Though not the only role, Heaven forbid that, the
role of the Universities is to encourage ''missionaries', by which I
mean people who want to make a difference by imparting knowledge and
skills where the resources exist but not the know-how to exploit
them!
--
'foolsrushin.'

Actually I take extreme issue with that. We need to conserve what we
cannot replace and what we are very short of. *Energy is not in short
supply*. Neither is wood, paper, plastics, glass for bottles, and a
million and one other things. Money looks like its becoming in short
supply. Only nuclear powerstations are in short supply. With enough,
there is no NEED to conserve energy at all. And we will need a LOT of it
to keep things stable under a warming climate.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Feel free to add...

23. Sequestration of cow farts?
24. Planting a tree on your head.

You can't just come up with a list like that, anyway. You need committees
and meeja coverage and decades of arguing first... :-)

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car pooling?)

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Feel free to add...

23. Sequestration of cow farts?
24. Planting a tree on your head.

You can't just come up with a list like that, anyway. You need committees
and meeja coverage and decades of arguing first... :-)

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car pooling?)


Definitely.

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

Ban the Bus!




Jules

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Feel free to add...

23. Sequestration of cow farts?
24. Planting a tree on your head.

You can't just come up with a list like that, anyway. You need committees
and meeja coverage and decades of arguing first... :-)

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)


Definitely.

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

Ban the Bus!

But but but....
....then I wouldn't be able to get into Cambridge and traipse about all those
lovely shops with the wife....

light bulb

Ban the Bus!
Ban the Bus!
Ban the Bus!

--
¦zulu¦

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:55:23 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Feel free to add...

23. Sequestration of cow farts?
24. Planting a tree on your head.

You can't just come up with a list like that, anyway. You need
committees and meeja coverage and decades of arguing first... :-)

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Definitely.

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space
of 5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

Ban the Bus!

25. Bus lanes. Cause miles of staionary/slow moving traffic.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Bzzt. If the bus has no-one in it, why does it "stop start"?

Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Bzzt. If the bus has no-one in it, why does it "stop start"?

Because it has to stop at (some) bus stops. Not all bus stops are
request stops. A bus must also run to schedule, which means stopping
some times otherwise it will be running ahead of schedule.

Steve Firth wrote:
Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.
Bzzt. If the bus has no-one in it, why does it "stop start"?

Because it has to stop at (some) bus stops. Not all bus stops are
request stops. A bus must also run to schedule, which means stopping
some times otherwise it will be running ahead of schedule.

Now let's not confuse fantasy with fact. Busses are always random, three
at a time, or late.

When did you ever see a bus 'on schedule'?

Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of
5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Bzzt. If the bus has no-one in it, why does it "stop start"?

A question I have often asked myself.

In the end I just decided that the ways of Bus Drivers are beyond the
ken of mortal man. Or perhaps its because they are stuck in traffic,
waiting at a red light staring at an empty crossroad like everyone else.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space
of 5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.
Bzzt. If the bus has no-one in it, why does it "stop start"?

A question I have often asked myself.

In the end I just decided that the ways of Bus Drivers are beyond the
ken of mortal man. Or perhaps its because they are stuck in traffic,
waiting at a red light staring at an empty crossroad like everyone else.


Or perhaps you don't really have a clue

--
geoff

Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of
5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Bzzt. If the bus has no-one in it, why does it "stop start"?

Every time it tries to get its monstrous bulk around one of Cambridge's
mediaeval-width streets. Saw one this afternoon, totally empty but
filling the entire width of the road.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

That is probably rubbish.
Most coach and bus journeys are essentially one way.
The coach/bus doesn't sit there using zero fuel while you work/shop it
returns without you making the effective distance travelled for your journey
double what it is in a car.
There are few bus/coach/train trips where passengers want to go both ways
consecutively on the same bus and they aren't planned like aeroplane trips
are to maximise the fill rate.


Ban the Bus!




Jules

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of
5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

That is probably rubbish.
Most coach and bus journeys are essentially one way.
The coach/bus doesn't sit there using zero fuel while you work/shop it
returns without you making the effective distance travelled for your
journey double what it is in a car.

What complete ********. Most coach trips are long distance, or booked as
a round trip, and run full in both directions.


There are few bus/coach/train trips where passengers want to go both
ways consecutively on the same bus and they aren't planned like
aeroplane trips are to maximise the fill rate.


No, they come back on another coach, possibly weeks later.

Otherwise there will be a net loss of population from the area the coach
leaves from.




Ban the Bus!




Jules

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space of 5
cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and relatively
efficient.

That is probably rubbish.
Most coach and bus journeys are essentially one way.
The coach/bus doesn't sit there using zero fuel while you work/shop it
returns without you making the effective distance travelled for your
journey double what it is in a car.
There are few bus/coach/train trips where passengers want to go both ways
consecutively on the same bus and they aren't planned like aeroplane trips
are to maximise the fill rate.

Ever heard of Megabus, or any of the other similar companies who do coach
travel for silly low money? They run fairly full both ways, and plan routes
to maximise cost efficiency.

How many MPG does a full coach get? How many MPG would a group of cars to
take the same number of people get? If you don`t have those figures to
hand, then you`re arguement is pointless.

Simon Finnigan wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Every time I se a 400bhp bus with no one it it, taking up the space
of 5 cars, I get a bad feeling. All that stop start just chews diesel.

Never confuse busses with long haul coaches, fast, full and
relatively efficient.

That is probably rubbish.
Most coach and bus journeys are essentially one way.
The coach/bus doesn't sit there using zero fuel while you work/shop it
returns without you making the effective distance travelled for your
journey double what it is in a car.
There are few bus/coach/train trips where passengers want to go both
ways consecutively on the same bus and they aren't planned like
aeroplane trips are to maximise the fill rate.

Ever heard of Megabus, or any of the other similar companies who do
coach travel for silly low money? They run fairly full both ways, and
plan routes to maximise cost efficiency.

How many MPG does a full coach get? How many MPG would a group of cars
to take the same number of people get? If you don`t have those figures
to hand, then you`re arguement is pointless.

Yes. A full coach cruising at 50-70mph down a motorway is one damned
efficient thing.

An empty bus in an otherwise empty bus lane, causing congestion for
everyone else, is an abortion.

In message . co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car pooling?)

Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London, or
car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a suburb and
you all drive to the same office in the city.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message . co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London, or
car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a suburb and
you all drive to the same office in the city.
They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one definite
point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

Precisely. The problem shouldn't be one of "how do we get from A to B
efficiently", but "how do we avoid the need to get to B in the first
place"... and so far very few people seem to be worrying about that.

The whole concept of going to a central place to shop or work is one of
our own making, and in a lot of cases it's one that we could choose
to solve if we so wanted.

(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

Precisely. The problem shouldn't be one of "how do we get from A to B
efficiently", but "how do we avoid the need to get to B in the first
place"... and so far very few people seem to be worrying about that.

The whole concept of going to a central place to shop or work is one of
our own making, and in a lot of cases it's one that we could choose
to solve if we so wanted.

(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)


No, actually its three things only.

Efficient electric batteries,
The internet
Nuclear power.


Those three together applied ruthlessly would knock western CO2
production down by around 90%.

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

Precisely. The problem shouldn't be one of "how do we get from A to B
efficiently", but "how do we avoid the need to get to B in the first
place"... and so far very few people seem to be worrying about that.

The whole concept of going to a central place to shop or work is one of
our own making, and in a lot of cases it's one that we could choose
to solve if we so wanted.


So how does transport-free shopping work then?

Also, though I suspect that cam.misc may not be representative in this
respect, research (and common sense) suggests that without regular human
contact, most people get depressed and go nuts. Though I suppose mass
suicide would be one solution to the population problem.



--- www.dogsticks.org ---

On 27 Dec 2007, 18:54, Jules
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

Precisely. The problem shouldn't be one of "how do we get from A to B
efficiently", but "how do we avoid the need to get to B in the first
place"... and so far very few people seem to be worrying about that.
The whole concept of going to a central place to shop or work is one of
our own making, and in a lot of cases it's one that we could choose
to solve if we so wanted.
Agreed!
(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)
cheers
Jules

I'd add, and it subsumes almost all comments to date, that we need to
have
an overall aim for any process we wish to manage, and a way of
measuring success that includes everybody in the loop, all their
concerns and passions. Education is the key!

Systems go out of control rapidly without the information we all need
to run them. There are four system states that we might consider:

* Stable
* Disturbed
* Oscillating
* Drifting

I'll post a bit more about this when I have time, including a Systems
Awareness Test.
--
'foolsrushin.'

Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-27, Jules wrote:

(Maybe we need a "1001 things that could save the planet" thread, too :-)

We only need one.

Stop having babies.


Thats one. Or a campaign of genocide. Thats the traditional way these
things are sorted out.

On 28 Dec 2007 10:54:27 GMT Huge wrote :
We only need one.

Stop having babies.

That kills everyone's retirement plans. People think that they can
save up for their retirement, but accumulating a stack of assets
(pension plan, BTL, housing equity etc) is only useful if you can
persuade the next generation to part with some of what they produce
(food, clothes, professional expertise) in exchange for some of the
stuff you have. Whilst the next generation is more numerous than the
present, you have a good chance of doing this. A contracting
population would mean more sellers than buyers.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message . co.uk,
at 10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)
Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London,
or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a
suburb and you all drive to the same office in the city.
They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one
definite point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.


Not an awful lot of use when it comes to hand-on jobs, is it ?


--
geoff

On 2007-12-27 21:26:43 +0000, geoff said:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message . co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car pooling?)
Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London,
or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a suburb
and you all drive to the same office in the city.
They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one
definite point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.


Not an awful lot of use when it comes to hand-on jobs, is it ?

I read that (quickly) as something else.....

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Roland Perry wrote:
In message . co.uk,
at 10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)
Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London,
or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a
suburb and you all drive to the same office in the city.
They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one
definite point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.


Not an awful lot of use when it comes to hand-on jobs, is it ?



Well ask the wife instead of the hooker.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, a particular chimpanzee, The
Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one definite
point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

It would be difficult to do my job from home; it would be impossible
to inspect a foundation excavation or the fire protection to a means
of escape via a webcam, or if I did, you certainly wouldn't want to
spend any time in such a building.

This is the problem with solutions to commuting that don't involve
personal transport; they fail to take account of jobs that aren't 9 to
5 in offices in city centres.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

Hugo Nebula wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:36:48 +0000, a particular chimpanzee, The
Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

They work when there is a need for mass transportation from one definite
point to another. Or within a pretty constrained area.

Sadly this is NOT , largely, what commuting is all about, nor yet most
other uses to which people put transport.

But once everybody realises that going shopping and going to work is a
total waste of time and money, and you can do more huddled over a DSL
modem at home, the question should largely become irrelevant.

It would be difficult to do my job from home;

That is why I said 'largely' . You are one of the few people here who
actually do a 'real' job of direct physical benefit to people. You are
in a minority.

The vast majority of all office work can be done at home, and office
work is what most peole sadly do. Car owners anyway.

it would be impossible
to inspect a foundation excavation or the fire protection to a means
of escape via a webcam, or if I did, you certainly wouldn't want to
spend any time in such a building.

This is the problem with solutions to commuting that don't involve
personal transport; they fail to take account of jobs that aren't 9 to
5 in offices in city centres.

Precisely.

Guess who were the first professional car users? district nurses and
doctors..

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:43:49 +0000, Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost
wrote:

It would be difficult to do my job from home;

I'd bet some of the admin could be.

it would be impossible
to inspect a foundation excavation or the fire protection to a means
of escape via a webcam, or if I did, you certainly wouldn't want to
spend any time in such a building.

This is the problem with solutions to commuting

That bit's not commuting, that's travelling out to a customer's site
and doesnt have to be done at peak commuting times contributing to
congestion at rush hour.

that don't involve personal transport; they fail to take account of jobs
that aren't 9 to 5 in offices in city centres.

You could type up your reports and do your own admin at home.

DG

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message . co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London, or
car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a suburb and
you all drive to the same office in the city.

Several of the things in TNP's list "work" in the sense of contributing to
changing things in the right direction. I think he's trying to claim that we
can do them all and it still won't be enough to "save the planet".

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:38:57 +0000, Tim Ward wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message . co.uk, at
10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London, or
car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a suburb and
you all drive to the same office in the city.

Several of the things in TNP's list "work" in the sense of contributing to
changing things in the right direction. I think he's trying to claim that we
can do them all and it still won't be enough to "save the planet".

Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind power do
useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means the 'save the
planet' solution that some people appear to promote them as.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:48:05 -0600, Jules wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:38:57 +0000, Tim Ward wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message . co.uk,
at 10:45:15 on Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Jules
remarked:

(For more serious suggestions, can I add public transport and car
pooling?)

Both of those work when it's done properly. Like the tube in London,
or car pooling 9-5 office jobs when there's several of you in a suburb
and you all drive to the same office in the city.

Several of the things in TNP's list "work" in the sense of contributing
to changing things in the right direction. I think he's trying to claim
that we can do them all and it still won't be enough to "save the
planet".

Yes, that was my way of reading the OP too - e.g. solar and wind power
do useful stuff in certain situations, but they're by no means the 'save
the planet' solution that some people appear to promote them as.

Yep, That's my take too. Even if we put all our resources behind doing
the things that do add up (and a lot don't; they make things worse), it
will be undone by the growth in the rest of the world in a very short
while. Nevertheless doing something is quite a useful occupation.


I'm more with the spirit of the /Surviviors/ the cult BBC drama from the
70's (which I hear is now going to be remade). I.e. The few people who
survive [1] will have to get on with how they find things and make the
best they can out of what they have.


[1] The zeitgeist of current reports is that there is some /sudden/
cataclysm coming. I just don't see how it will be so sudden. People are
the most adaptable land creatures. We collectively have found ways of
living in the deserts, arctic and rain forests. True everywhere on
average may become a lot less hospitable, but specific places already
have huge variations in their weather through the seasons which far
exceed that variation that some places experience. So there should be
some places that offer a workable habitat. What I am prepared to accept
is the impossibility of the current population/lifestyle continuing
without change for more than a few decades.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html