Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:59:46 on Thu, 27
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

Why did you leave off "stop using disposable nappies"?

What's the carbon footprint of using "real" nappies? Lots of
detergent/disinfectant to manufacture and deliver, washing water to
clean deliver and heat, drains and sewage works to treat the waste
water, etc etc.

In the 60s my baby sister's nappies were held in a flushing toilet, if
still really messy they soaked overnight in a bucket full of bio wash,
then put into the washing machine with the rest of the washing and then
dried outside on the line.

So no worse than if a baby was physically able to use a loo itself like
anyone else. Most disposable nappies have some sort of waterproof layer
incorporated and so don't rot down for many years.

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..

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

25. Organic Vegetable

Quite so, given that organic vegetables (and everything else) use more energy
than the mass produced stuff.


One of my erstwhile colleagues, Henry Gee, pointed out that the deserts
of Mesopotamia (now Iraq) were the results of thousands of years'
organic farming.

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

Tony Bryer wrote:
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.

Just get used to the fact that living to 80 or beyond is a fairly recent
prospect. In the middle ages one would be considered geriatric at 45.

On 2007-12-28 20:00:21 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Jules wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:11:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Pneumatic railways have been used for decades. The former Post Office
railway in London could be reused as a London backbone of the network,
if it hasn't been filled with optical fibre.
The routing gets too complicated, and its just as energy inefficient as
anything else, and very constraining with respect to packet size.
All uyou need fotr package delivery is a simple intyernet routing
system, but instead of IP packets they are barcoded square parcels,
with a terminal every few miles. Any vehicle going in a certain
direction loads up with whatever is suitable for that route, and gets
paid.

Yep, I've been saying that for quite a while now... it seems bonkers
that so many separate deliveries are done to homes - and that (with the
exception of refuse disposal) it's almost all one-way (i.e. something gets
dropped off at a house, but nothing gets put back in the vehicle to fill
that space).

A combination of services seems sensible - and in this day and age we now
have the technology to make it a bit more intelligent (i.e. via the 'net
the individual can flag when they have something that needs picking up
from the house)


Very good case for a nationalised subsidised postal service...

Let's not go tooooo far.....

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:


Give me enough cheap electricity, and I'll find a way to shift it.
Hydrogen might actually be useful.

Oh wait, cheap?


Nuclear.

About as cheap as we pay these days.

Andy

You're preaching to the choir there. Mind, if the politicians had got
their fingers out, back in the 50s, with some decent funding we might
have fusion by now, much cleaner. Average Joe sees "Nucular fiusion"
and objects to both.

Andy

p.s. what's this "cam.misc" xpost?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:13:25 +0000, magwitch put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:59:46 on Thu, 27
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:

Why did you leave off "stop using disposable nappies"?

What's the carbon footprint of using "real" nappies? Lots of
detergent/disinfectant to manufacture and deliver, washing water to
clean deliver and heat, drains and sewage works to treat the waste
water, etc etc.

In the 60s my baby sister's nappies were held in a flushing toilet, if
still really messy they soaked overnight in a bucket full of bio wash,
then put into the washing machine with the rest of the washing and then
dried outside on the line.

So no worse than if a baby was physically able to use a loo itself like
anyone else.

No, because if the baby was able to use the loo it wouldn't have
nappies that needed washing. You don't wet your clothes every time you
have a pee, do you? If you did, you'd end up washing your clothes a
lot more often and it would be propertionately more expensive (and
eco-unfriendly) to do so.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"All I want is to find an easier way to get out of our little heads"

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-12-28 13:49:54 +0000, Pete Verdon
d said:

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote

22. Banning fox hunting.

It will.

Banning hunting will help save the planet?

Pete

Don't forget that the Good Dr's elevator doesn't always go to the top
floor.


Well I read that, and concluded that it'd taken a direct path to 18.

Andy

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you DO
believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.

Not here

Mine aren't.

Senility must be wonderful


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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

Chauffeurs actually... but I take your point. I think the Police were
pretty early too.

I could do almost my entire job from home - except my wife would
probably divorce me, and then I wouldn't have a home!

Andy

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
John Rumm wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

15. Hydrogen fuel.
If you have nuclear to make it, then it starts to be useful for
sorts - either directly or in a fuel cell to replace battery
technology.

It doesn't work as well as batteries and is a hell of a sight more
dangerous to use and store, so why bother?
because it's not a one solution fits all problem


Thatys wht we drive around on square wheels with elegantly
compensating suspenension them?

Are you Drivel in a new moniker?
You do come across as a total ****** at times, don't you


ROFLMAO!



Only case it makes sense is aircraft, but even there its a hell of
bulky stuff to cram in. Better to make synthetic kerosene.

out of what ?

Water, carbon dioxide, and energy.
Just a minute - let me rub two sticks together


whatever for?

I suppose you don't know any chemistry either.

Only up to A level


Lets see.
Cant do geography:
doesn't know that tropics are not where deserts are.

Loose definition - I wasn't being specific, I wasn't expecting such an
anal pedant. If you look at an atlas however, you'll find that the N
African desert does extend well into the equatorial region (i.e. 23
degrees)

Cant do sums and add up the costs of things.

There seem to be people with much more of a clue than yourself who think
it's viable, go read the NS article

Given that the Mediterranean is 8 miles wide at the straits of
Gibraltar, that bit's not exactly unachievable, and as large
transmission projects, how much more difficult do you think it is than
e.g. the trans-Siberian pipeline or the US national grid ?

Can't do logic.

Let me guess,.

No don't

You are a Nu Laber politician,

Told you not to

Projects like this need people with vision, not worn out, retired IT
bods who can only see "can't do's"




--
geoff

magwitch wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-27, Mark wrote:

25. Organic Vegetable

Quite so, given that organic vegetables (and everything else) use more
energy
than the mass produced stuff.


One of my erstwhile colleagues, Henry Gee, pointed out that the deserts
of Mesopotamia (now Iraq) were the results of thousands of years'
organic farming.

As is most of the sahara and the sahel.

Derek Geldard wrote:
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 doesn't have to be done at peak commuting times contributing to
congestion at rush hour.

Cool. I'm an environmentally friendly handyman! I rarely leave home before
9AM & am rarely home before 7PM. Suits me & he clients & avoids the worst
of Medway's traffic.


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

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

I was doing some 'lateral thinking'.... If everyone went, on foot,
down the pub as soon as it got dark (having switched everything off
first), then we would just need the Telly and the lights in the pub.

Ah yes been there done that ...

Was living in a very cold flat, and we'd spend evenings in the pub to keep
warm, as the beer was cheaper than the fuel we'd have burnt in a futile
attempt to get the flat warm.

Another cam.miscer (who may not read this as I think he's not following this
thread) will remember ...

--
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

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you DO
believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.

Not here

Mine aren't.

Senility must be wonderful



Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there was
a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth loss
could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a thing
of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

Tim Ward wrote:
"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...
I was doing some 'lateral thinking'.... If everyone went, on foot,
down the pub as soon as it got dark (having switched everything off
first), then we would just need the Telly and the lights in the pub.

Ah yes been there done that ...

Was living in a very cold flat, and we'd spend evenings in the pub to keep
warm, as the beer was cheaper than the fuel we'd have burnt in a futile
attempt to get the flat warm.

Another cam.miscer (who may not read this as I think he's not following this
thread) will remember ...

So you didn't try rubbing in Deep Heat lotion like Withnail? :-)

magwitch wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.

Not here

Mine aren't.

Senility must be wonderful



Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there was
a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth loss
could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a thing
of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

Yup. Sadly as science journals go, its the Sunday Sport of them..Still
it has its place.

"magwitch" wrote in message
...

New Scientist

Years ago it stopped having any science in it at all and became entirely
devoted to politics (of one sort or another), so I stopped reading it. Has
this changed?

--
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

Tim Ward wrote:
"magwitch" wrote in message
...
New Scientist

Years ago it stopped having any science in it at all and became entirely
devoted to politics (of one sort or another), so I stopped reading it. Has
this changed?

Not a lot.

Its still very 'wow, save the whale, green is good, and here's a bit of
incomprehensible string theory to make you feel you actually understand
the universe' sort of stuff.

If you are smart enough to wing your way past the lefty ******** and the
lack of intelligence of the journalists, sometimes it does provide a
pointer to something quite interesting going on: But sadly you can't
rely on the journalists to distinguish between complete scams and real
science.

It does best when there is no political angle at all, and when the
journalist understands so little that he/she gets the person doing the
research to more or less write the article themselves.

In message , magwitch
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.
Not here

Mine aren't.
Senility must be wonderful


Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there
was a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth loss
could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a thing
of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way to
keep in touch

That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong

I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,

unless they are terminally sad, anyway


oh ... as you were




--
geoff

In message , Tim Ward
writes
"magwitch" wrote in message
...

New Scientist

Years ago it stopped having any science in it at all and became entirely
devoted to politics (of one sort or another), so I stopped reading it. Has
this changed?

actually, it's got worse

and Septicised


--
geoff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Ward wrote:
"magwitch" wrote in message
...
New Scientist

Years ago it stopped having any science in it at all and became
entirely devoted to politics (of one sort or another), so I stopped
reading it. Has this changed?

Not a lot.

Its still very 'wow, save the whale, green is good, and here's a bit of
incomprehensible string theory to make you feel you actually understand
the universe' sort of stuff.

If you are smart enough to wing your way past the lefty ******** and the
lack of intelligence of the journalists, sometimes it does provide a
pointer to something quite interesting going on: But sadly you can't
rely on the journalists to distinguish between complete scams and real
science.

It does best when there is no political angle at all, and when the
journalist understands so little that he/she gets the person doing the
research to more or less write the article themselves.



I was once interviewed there unsuccessfully. Three weeks later they
phoned me up wanting me to freelance for them, but offering the same pay
as if it were the full time job I didn't get, not proper freelance
rates. Cheapskates, I thought.

Also by then, I'd got a full time job paying 10k more than they'd
offered. Not impressed, but they do do some pretty pictures.

geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.
Not here

Mine aren't.
Senility must be wonderful


Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there
was a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth
loss could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a
thing of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way to
keep in touch

What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser beams
and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...

That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong

True. Just that no-one gets the chance to refute or analyse in any
meaningful way that the waffle published in NS is aything more than a
fuzzy opinion. Every other journal has a panel of peer-reviewers, why
doesn't NS?

I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,

unless they are terminally sad, anyway

Or seriously interested in current science in all it's difficult, dull
and mentally challenging glory, and not just in posing as an armchair
expert down the pub in front of your mates.

oh ... as you were

In message , magwitch
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.
Not here

Mine aren't.
Senility must be wonderful


Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there
was a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth loss
could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a thing
of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

I can think of several cases of bad science / fraud which have appeared
in Nature over the years

**** happens

grow up, get some dentures


--
geoff

In message , magwitch
writes
New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a
comic for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.
New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way
to keep in touch

What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser
beams and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...

The person quoted to have achieved 42.8% efficiency (Allen Barnett)
googles as being something of a leader in the field

If you claim the figure is wrong, write to NS with your proof - I'll
look out for the apology

either way, the absolute figure is not the most important thing

The cost of solar arrays when built in the quantities required means
that they will be significantly than they are ATM

That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong

True. Just that no-one gets the chance to refute or analyse in any
meaningful way that the waffle published in NS is aything more than a
fuzzy opinion.

Every other journal has a panel of peer-reviewers, why doesn't NS?

It's a popular journal,

If you want to refute anything that is printed there - do it

I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,
unless they are terminally sad, anyway

Or seriously interested in current science in all it's difficult, dull
and mentally challenging glory,

I no longer have more than a passing interest

My business is electronics and not cutting edge

and not just in posing as an armchair expert down the pub in front of
your mates.

And who is doing that ?
or has your mind gone the same way as your teeth ?



oh ... as you were


--
geoff

In message , magwitch
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Ward wrote:
"magwitch" wrote in message
...
New Scientist

Years ago it stopped having any science in it at all and became
entirely devoted to politics (of one sort or another), so I stopped
reading it. Has this changed?

Not a lot.
Its still very 'wow, save the whale, green is good, and here's a bit
of incomprehensible string theory to make you feel you actually
understand the universe' sort of stuff.
If you are smart enough to wing your way past the lefty ******** and
the lack of intelligence of the journalists, sometimes it does
provide a pointer to something quite interesting going on: But sadly
you can't rely on the journalists to distinguish between complete
scams and real science.
It does best when there is no political angle at all, and when the
journalist understands so little that he/she gets the person doing the
research to more or less write the article themselves.



I was once interviewed there unsuccessfully. Three weeks later they
phoned me up wanting me to freelance for them, but offering the same
pay as if it were the full time job I didn't get, not proper freelance
rates. Cheapskates, I thought.


They obviously thought that was all you were worth

and the chip remains

--
geoff

magwitch wrote:

Just get used to the fact that living to 80 or beyond is a fairly recent
prospect. In the middle ages one would be considered geriatric at 45.

That's a failure to interpret statistics correctly. The average life
expectancy in medieval England was 33. This does not mean that 45 year
olds were warn out dottards, it reflects the high infant mortality rate
and the high rate of death from communicable diseases.

If ne survided these then life expectancy was not much different from
today with individuals living to 89 years or more.

Archaeological dating of remains has also tended to grossly
underestimate the age of death.

Tim Ward wrote:
"magwitch" wrote in message
...
New Scientist

Years ago it stopped having any science in it at all and became entirely
devoted to politics (of one sort or another), so I stopped reading it. Has
this changed?

No, gave it up a couple of years back...

mostly froth, and as soon as they covered any topic you knew about you
realised the lack of depth and sloppiness of much of the content.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , at 23:02:15 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
Was living in a very cold flat, and we'd spend evenings in the pub to keep
warm, as the beer was cheaper than the fuel we'd have burnt in a futile
attempt to get the flat warm.

Another cam.miscer (who may not read this as I think he's not following this
thread) will remember ...

cough
--
Roland Perry

geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Well everything you have said suggests that is precisely what you
DO believe.

If you look at my original post - I was just quoting from a NS
article I was in the middle of reading
Yes there are big problems, but the solutions are not as
insurmountable as you like to paint

Yours are.
Not here

Mine aren't.
Senility must be wonderful


Yeah and I remember reading in New Scientist 10 years ago that there
was a dental treatment that enabled new bone to be formed so tooth
loss could be halted and the effects of peridontal disease would be a
thing of the past... still waiting.

New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a comic
for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.

I can think of several cases of bad science / fraud which have appeared
in Nature over the years

I think you mean Nature or Science have investigated and exposed many
cases of bad science/fraud over the years and their rigorous peer review
process ensures that it's either not published at all or only published
when the author(s) have explained to the reviewers' satisfaction their
conclusions from the data available.

**** happens

The peer review system isn't perfect but it's the best we have.

grow up, get some dentures


When your idea of an insult is 'senility must be wonderful'?

I'd much rather have false teeth than be an incredulous twerp who gets
his facts out of a phoney science-lite comic.

geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch
writes
New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a
comic for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.
New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way
to keep in touch

What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser
beams and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...

The person quoted to have achieved 42.8% efficiency (Allen Barnett)
googles as being something of a leader in the field

If you claim the figure is wrong, write to NS with your proof - I'll
look out for the apology

either way, the absolute figure is not the most important thing

The cost of solar arrays when built in the quantities required means
that they will be significantly than they are ATM

That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong

True. Just that no-one gets the chance to refute or analyse in any
meaningful way that the waffle published in NS is aything more than a
fuzzy opinion.

Every other journal has a panel of peer-reviewers, why doesn't NS?

It's a popular journal,

If you want to refute anything that is printed there - do it

I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,
unless they are terminally sad, anyway

Or seriously interested in current science in all it's difficult, dull
and mentally challenging glory,

I no longer have more than a passing interest

My business is electronics and not cutting edge

and not just in posing as an armchair expert down the pub in front of
your mates.

And who is doing that ?
or has your mind gone the same way as your teeth ?



oh ... as you were

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:02:15 on Fri, 28
Dec 2007, Tim Ward remarked:
Was living in a very cold flat, and we'd spend evenings in the pub to
keep
warm, as the beer was cheaper than the fuel we'd have burnt in a futile
attempt to get the flat warm.

Another cam.miscer (who may not read this as I think he's not
following this
thread) will remember ...

cough

Reminds me of the first shared house I lived in


However I discovered that a two bar electric fire was a lot cheaper than
going down the pub, to heat the tiny room I lived in. Yes, it was on all
night too..

Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-28, Tony Bryer wrote:
On 28 Dec 2007 10:54:27 GMT Huge wrote :
We only need one.

Stop having babies.
That kills everyone's retirement plans.

Ah, so it's OK to consume the planet in order to provide people with pensions?



That's pretty much the way the third world looks at it.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-12-28, Andy Champ wrote:

You're preaching to the choir there. Mind, if the politicians had got
their fingers out, back in the 50s, with some decent funding we might
have fusion by now, much cleaner. Average Joe sees "Nucular fiusion"
and objects to both.

Which is why NMR became MRI.


I bet there is still a majority of people in this country who think that
an atomic reactor can go up like a fission bomb, and you can steal
nuclear fuel rods and turn them into A bombs, too.

geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch
writes
New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a
comic for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.
New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a way
to keep in touch

What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser
beams and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...

The person quoted to have achieved 42.8% efficiency (Allen Barnett)
googles as being something of a leader in the field

Err no actually. Nowhere in the NS article I have in front of me is
either Allen Barnett or 42.8% mentioned at all... how very remiss of
them. You aren't confusing this with THGTTG are you? (the answer to the
universe and everything was also 42 and as you say below, the 0.8% isn't
important)

If you claim the figure is wrong, write to NS with your proof - I'll
look out for the apology

Oh it's not just me, the launch costs, likelihood of the beam from space
microwaving population centres,

either way, the absolute figure is not the most important thing


In practical scientific terms the absolute figure or data is _always_
the most important thing.

The cost of solar arrays when built in the quantities required means
that they will be significantly than they are ATM

Run that past me again? "significantly ... than" (more or less? or both?)


That doesn't mean that when figures and references are quoted in
articles that they are wrong

But New Scientist hardly ever quotes figures, data or references — that
surely is the point!

True. Just that no-one gets the chance to refute or analyse in any
meaningful way that the waffle published in NS is aything more than a
fuzzy opinion.

Every other journal has a panel of peer-reviewers, why doesn't NS?

It's a popular journal,

For dummies too thick to get their heads around a proper scientific
concept, but too arrogant to admit to themselves this is the case.

If you want to refute anything that is printed there - do it

There's nothing concrete printed in NS so nothing to refute.

I, like most people who are no longer involved in research or
development, have very little time nowadays to read scientific papers,
unless they are terminally sad, anyway

Or seriously interested in current science in all it's difficult, dull
and mentally challenging glory,

I no longer have more than a passing interest

My business is electronics and not cutting edge

I'm unsurprised. So why should anyone here take you seriously?

and not just in posing as an armchair expert down the pub in front of
your mates.

And who is doing that ?
or has your mind gone the same way as your teeth ?



My teeth (happily for you) are not your concern.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Was living in a very cold flat, and we'd spend evenings in the pub to
keep
warm, as the beer was cheaper than the fuel we'd have burnt in a futile
attempt to get the flat warm.

snip

Reminds me of the first shared house I lived in

Reminds me of the third (and worst) shared flat I lived in. However it
did have two advantages to balance against the total grot, the
impossibility of having a warm bath even after adding several boiling
kettles as it filled and the ice on the inside of the windows in winter.
Firstly it was the cheapest flat in Stafford at the time (1967ish) with
a rent of only 16 quid a month which would have been affordable even as
a sole residence (there were four of us sharing) and secondly it was
next door to a pub and we could be in there in less time than it took
most people to get to their front gates.

--
Roger Chapman

In message , magwitch
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , magwitch
writes
New Scientist is, in a peer-reviewed scientific sense, mostly a
comic for those who like to appear cleverer than they really are.
New scientist is, for those who have moved on to other things, a
way to keep in touch

What with? Rosy fantasies such as robot-operated solar panels on the
moon will be beaming us free energy via 'immensely powerful' laser
beams and we'll all live happily ever after. Yebbut...
The person quoted to have achieved 42.8% efficiency (Allen Barnett)
googles as being something of a leader in the field

Err no actually. Nowhere in the NS article I have in front of me is
either Allen Barnett or 42.8% mentioned at all...

Then you're reading the wrong article ...


--
geoff

Owain wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Very good case for a nationalised subsidised postal service...

One that delivers several times a day, can deliver urgent parcels before
9 am next day, can collect and delivery local mail same day, and can
collect from street receptacles 7 days a week ...

We tried it once, but the unions went on strike and broke it, so
everyone bought fax machines instead.


The piojnt is that fir messagiung, text, email and even fax is FAR more
reliable.

Its only GOODS that need themovement, and I query the need for several
times a day eirther.

On or two more or less guaranteed deliveries with a completely reliable
tracking system would be a start.

Let's consider this,because I did a few years back.

Every packet, or box, has a barcode on it, that as a minimum, the target
address (postcode, and house, unique) and a unique packet ID.

Automatic scanners, or manual scaners if the autos do not work, scan
each parcel that is recieved, at any given point in its journey.

The scanners relay the position of te parcel back to a central series of
computers that propagate the information between them.

Each scanning station runs the equaivalent of a dynamic routing
protocol. Vehicles travel between scanner stations (Routers) with the
packets, and load up with the packets to the gunwales, on a 24x7 basis.

When they arrive the packets are rescanned, and re-rtouted for the 'next
hop'

If a packet is clocked IN to a vehicle, but not OUT, it is flagged as an
alarm, and the carrier notified.

At ANY stage of this the last known location of a packet could be
established.,

You could arrange for e-mail notification when it gets to the nearest
routing station, and pick it up, or have the local lower QOS postal
service deliver it.

At the pickup point, it gets 'removed' from the 'active' system.

Now to may way of thinking, you have a nationalised central database
system for this, or at least a national standard for data interchange.
This is 'the parcel internet'

Each routing station could be private, run for profit, and paid on a per
parcel basis. This is the 'parcel ISP'

Each carrier that picks up parcels could be anyone, froma train to a man
with a van, paid on a per packet basis.

This is the 'parcel carrier network'


As with broadband, the last mile is the biggest problem. However again a
local man with a van, is probably as good as it gets.

As with the internet, who you pay and how you pay them is a
variable..you would probably have a standard rate and pay the local
carrier. HE gets charged for onward delivery ...if you make a standard
rate for a kilogram packet mile, or some such, then the system will
automagically sort out what it will cost, and do least cost routing, or
however you arrange it..

No GUARANTEES, but as with the internet, a 99% probability of 10x better
service than a 100% guaranteed service is usually good enough.

And the packets are totally trackable through every single station..and
if things go wrong, they can be unloaded at any station and resinserted
into the system and will still get forwarded along to the right 'next hop'















Owain

On 2007-12-29 14:31:42 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Owain wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Very good case for a nationalised subsidised postal service...

One that delivers several times a day, can deliver urgent parcels
before 9 am next day, can collect and delivery local mail same day, and
can collect from street receptacles 7 days a week ...

We tried it once, but the unions went on strike and broke it, so
everyone bought fax machines instead.


The piojnt is that fir messagiung, text, email and even fax is FAR more
reliable.

Its only GOODS that need themovement, and I query the need for several
times a day eirther.

On or two more or less guaranteed deliveries with a completely reliable
tracking system would be a start.

Let's consider this,because I did a few years back.

Every packet, or box, has a barcode on it, that as a minimum, the
target address (postcode, and house, unique) and a unique packet ID.

Automatic scanners, or manual scaners if the autos do not work, scan
each parcel that is recieved, at any given point in its journey.

The scanners relay the position of te parcel back to a central series
of computers that propagate the information between them.

Each scanning station runs the equaivalent of a dynamic routing
protocol. Vehicles travel between scanner stations (Routers) with the
packets, and load up with the packets to the gunwales, on a 24x7 basis.

When they arrive the packets are rescanned, and re-rtouted for the 'next hop'

If a packet is clocked IN to a vehicle, but not OUT, it is flagged as
an alarm, and the carrier notified.

At ANY stage of this the last known location of a packet could be established.,

You could arrange for e-mail notification when it gets to the nearest
routing station, and pick it up, or have the local lower QOS postal
service deliver it.

At the pickup point, it gets 'removed' from the 'active' system.

Now to may way of thinking, you have a nationalised central database
system for this, or at least a national standard for data interchange.
This is 'the parcel internet'

Each routing station could be private, run for profit, and paid on a
per parcel basis. This is the 'parcel ISP'

Each carrier that picks up parcels could be anyone, froma train to a
man with a van, paid on a per packet basis.

This is the 'parcel carrier network'


As with broadband, the last mile is the biggest problem. However again
a local man with a van, is probably as good as it gets.

As with the internet, who you pay and how you pay them is a
variable..you would probably have a standard rate and pay the local
carrier. HE gets charged for onward delivery ...if you make a standard
rate for a kilogram packet mile, or some such, then the system will
automagically sort out what it will cost, and do least cost routing, or
however you arrange it..

No GUARANTEES, but as with the internet, a 99% probability of 10x
better service than a 100% guaranteed service is usually good enough.

And the packets are totally trackable through every single station..and
if things go wrong, they can be unloaded at any station and resinserted
into the system and will still get forwarded along to the right 'next
hop'


This is lovely, but for one thing.

Presumably there would be a nominated approximate time for each
property. That's useful and would have the advantage that the
recipient would have a reasonable time window where they know that they
will get a delivery (or not if there isn't one) and so can plan their
day.

Most couriers work by loading up their van with parcels organised so
that earliest deliveries are first off and so on and then begin picking
up at some point during the day.

However....... customers will want to buy premium delivery service.
For example, if I buy something from RS, I can choose before 0900,
before 1000 or next day, or for especially urgent things, a van/bike
arrangement.
Suppliers will be eager to accomodate them because it is a
differentiator based on service and money is attached to that in
several ways.

At that point, bang goes the dynamic routing protocol of the model and
in comes the pre-emptive forwarding, the weighted fair queuing and even
the TE of the delivery model.

Of course, one could achieve most of the desired effect, as it is done
in the case of the internet by massively over-provisioning the core and
interconnectivity bandwidth to the major places. However, that would
be self defeating for an eco-solution because the point is that that
capacity should be run at the limit and not half empty.

As it is with the internet today, the failing would be at the edges
(collection and delivery) and with connectivity to the more difficult
countries where the volume or political situation don't allow the best
service.