Simon Brown wrote:
Socialism etc


Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

Norway has major social problems. The people largely work in non jobs
for the state and cannot afford to use restaurants or bars. The exchange
rate is unreal.

Clive George wrote:
On 29/04/2015 21:58, Simon Brown wrote:

No. Its still the reason that slavery isn't useful anymore
and always will be, particularly with technology. Even
domestic slaves have no real use now that we get
technology to do what we used to have slaves do.

There's no point in using slaves if it's cheap enough to employ people,
and that's what happens - see eg construction workers in the middle
east, lots of China, etc.

It's not technology which has replaced slaves, it's other forms of
abusive labour.

The UK servant class now works in fast food outlets or on ready meal
production lines.

Simon Brown wrote:

It is poisoning us a lot less than it used to at the height of the
industrial revolution. We just don’t get smog like we used to.T
True, that's why my roof (and drive) is now covered in moss. Not enough
sulphur in the air!

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/04/2015 21:58, Simon Brown wrote:

No. Its still the reason that slavery isn't useful anymore
and always will be, particularly with technology. Even
domestic slaves have no real use now that we get
technology to do what we used to have slaves do.

There's no point in using slaves if it's cheap enough to employ people,
and that's what happens - see eg construction workers in the middle east,
lots of China, etc.

I restricted my comments to the first world in the bits you snipped.

It is always going to cost more to employ people
than to use slaves, because those you employ
end up with more than just food and lodging.

It's not technology which has replaced slaves,

It was in the first world, particularly with agriculture and house slaves.

it's other forms of
abusive labour.

Not in the first world.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Brown wrote:
Socialism etc


Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

Norway has major social problems.

Everywhere does.

The people largely work in non jobs for the state

Oh bull****.

and cannot afford to use restaurants or bars.

Bull****.

The exchange rate is unreal.

Irrelevant for natives.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread
isn't about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers
petrol and diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels
like LPG and so on.

The tread is about synthetic diesel engine fuel.

It's either diesel or it isn't. Or perhaps you consider alcohol or
hydrogen that a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

A compression ignition engine can also run on a variety of fuels, other
than diesel. And if you think all fuels produce the same by products when
burned, you're even more stupid than I first thought.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
Take NOx - which this latest scaremongering is about...
Euro 3 (2000) introduced a cap on diesel NOx of 0.5g/km.
Euro 6 (2014) is 0.08g/cam

Big snag is these figures may be easy enough to achieve in the lab, but
not under actual usage. This has always been the problem with diesels
which the authorities have only recently admitted to.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
harryagain wrote

I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when
the thread isn't about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion
which covers petrol and diesel types as well as those running
on alternative fuels like LPG and so on.

The tread is about synthetic diesel engine fuel.

It's either diesel or it isn't.

There is a difference between making it from crude oil and from CO2.

Or perhaps you consider alcohol or hydrogen that
a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

A compression ignition engine can also run on a variety of fuels,
other than diesel. And if you think all fuels produce the same by
products when burned, you're even more stupid than I first thought.

On 30/04/2015 00:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
....
you're even more stupid than I first thought.

This is harry - by now that's got to be getting quite hard surely?

On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish


NT

On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.
At least in terms of major break throughs.




NT



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 29/04/2015 18:05, harryagain wrote:

Yes well lots of things were impossible to the brain dead in the past.
Steam locomotives, motorcars, heavier than air flight, supersonic flight,
space flight, radio, photography. television, computers, jet engine,
microprocessors etc etc.

Thorium reactors, nuclear waste disposal, ..

Plenty of brain dead here, making pronoucements from a positio of total
ignorance (which they think tobe "common sense").
Some I think have no education at all.



I see you recognise yourself.

Actually, I was thinking of you.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.

That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and
the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism
wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals
and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the
emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all
victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow, complacent
wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you pretend you
can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world is driven by
the relentless petty choices of small minded people always selecting the
cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about through vision
and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it about. You know
that already.

Apart from the eradication of smallpox, everything you are describing
concerns human actions. You do something, or you don't; you make a
choice. Even the eradication of smallpox, now I come to think of it, in
fact falls into that category. That happened because it was technically
and practically possible, and because of an act of will on the part of
the WHO. In principle, you could eradicate the common house fly, too,
except that would most likely be impractical.

The sort of stuff that you seem to be talking about, however, is *not*
technically possible. Things in that category will *never* get done,
regardless of how much "vision", "faith", or any other damn human
emotion there is to bolster up the "hope". You want an everyday car
running only on solar power, with batteries perhaps for night use? Not
possible. Not possible however much research money, or indeed "faith",
you throw at it. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Yes well lots of things were impossible to the brain dead in the past.
Steam locomotives, motorcars, heavier than air flight, supersonic flight,
space flight, radio, photography. television, computers, jet engine,
microprocessors etc etc.

Er no, they weren't impossible harry. Thass the point. None of these
breaks any physical law. Possibly, if some natural philosopher in the
18thC was asked about some of these, he'd might have said "May be
possible but we don't know enough about nature to say one way or the
other" but that's *all* he could have said. A 100 years or so later he
might have said "Yes we broadly speaking understand how to do this but
we can't build a vessel strong enough (or light enough, or whatever) to
make the item in question a *practical* proposition.

After all, planes flew in the early 20thC. Didn't mean that the
following Tuesday fortnight they'd be rolling out the A380. Equally,
only a fool might have said that heavier-than-air flight was
impossible. Unless they believed that birds flew by magic, of course.

The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or
that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that
could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the
car/plane needs no other energy source.

Well one already exists.
What you don't realise is that if some technology could be found to reduce
drag sufficiently, then it wuld be easily possible.

They were impossible to most people.
eg There were windmills in the ancient Middle East.
Only now they are approaching anything like their full potenial.

People back then were as ignorant as some here today.
Most thought that all knowledge came from the bible.
ie, the only manned heavier than air flight possible was angels (held aloft
by the holy spirit.)
And the Earth was flat and seven thousand years old.
And lead could be "transmuted" to gold with the "philosopher's stone".

People were burned to death for believing otherwise.
And it was Leonardo da Vinci designed the first aircraft including
helicopters.
He could have been burned for that too.
A model aircraft has been found in an ancient Egyptian tomb.

TurNiP is one of these people who would burn people for not believing in the
nuclear myth/God.

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 23:21, Capitol wrote:
The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest
long term solution, as that's all they can afford.

Its not even in the end a choice. A society that chooses expensive not
very effective ways of doing things will not be able to stand against a
society that chooses cheaper and more effective ways.

Europe colonised the world because it had technology at its disposal.

Europe colonised the world long before the steam engine.

Using the technology of ocean going ships.

In many cases driven by religion and greed.

It was money that made it all possible.

It was much more the drive to do it that made it possible.

The concentration of wealth.

Doesn’t explain the Vikings that rampaged
over a surprising amount of the world.

Accumulating yet more wealth.
An upward spiral.
(Which is why socialism always fails.)

Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.


More socialist myths.
Norway has a conservatve government ****-fer-brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Brain dead Socialism always fails wherever implemented.


Cheaper is rarely more effective.
Eg Smart bombs v. dumb bombs.
Rifles v. muskets

You get the opposite effect with much technology,
cheaper makes it viable for everyone to have it.

The proles always drive Fords et al.
The rich drive BMWs.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/15 22:04, Simon Brown wrote:
Hasn't failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

when you have a population as low as they have and as much oil/gas as they
have you can afford socialism. Till the oil runs out....

Not that they are even socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare
story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. - Erwin Knoll

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Brown wrote:
Socialism etc


Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

Norway has major social problems.

Everywhere does.

The people largely work in non jobs for the state

Oh bull****.

and cannot afford to use restaurants or bars.

Bull****.

The exchange rate is unreal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ained _growth

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
On 29/04/2015 21:58, Simon Brown wrote:

No. Its still the reason that slavery isn't useful anymore
and always will be, particularly with technology. Even
domestic slaves have no real use now that we get
technology to do what we used to have slaves do.

There's no point in using slaves if it's cheap enough to employ people,
and that's what happens - see eg construction workers in the middle
east, lots of China, etc.

It's not technology which has replaced slaves, it's other forms of
abusive labour.

The UK servant class now works in fast food outlets or on ready meal
production lines.

You mean the idle and uneducated class.
Unlike in earlier times, they had every chance but muffed it.
Starting in school.

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...
Drivel.
We have created an economy that is now poisoning us all.

It is poisoning us a lot less than it used to at the height of the
industrial revolution. We just don’t get smog like we used to.

The pollutants are just more subtle and widespread.

No, most obviously with smog.

And will be much harder to fix.

Much easier to fix when power stations
don’t churn out exhaust gases and we
use nukes that consume all of the
radioactive materials put into them.

That will never happen.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Brown wrote:

It is poisoning us a lot less than it used to at the height of the
industrial revolution. We just don’t get smog like we used to.T
True, that's why my roof (and drive) is now covered in moss. Not enough
sulphur in the air!

That's the subtle bit.
Moss isn't affected by PMs from diesel engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 22:56, Tim w wrote:
You know that Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a
world of ready-meals and Ant and Dec?

No. it was defeated by hard works and superior technology actually, and
a bit of luck.

Fascism was defeated by money.


Fascism was defeated by the yanks choosing to get involved.

Hitler declared war on America after the Pearl Harbour attack. He had a pact
with Japan.
The Yanks had no choice.

They were no friends of ours.
They had a plan at that time to invade Canada.
And were making preparations to do so.

Money to provide the industry and the waepons.
It was about much more than just money.

Everything is about money.
Hitler hoped to form an alliance with us.

You're not very well informed are you?

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim w" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put
socks in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the
constant, dismal, negative, droning.

He's just a poor old man, living in the past and can't see past the end
of his nose.

I bet his grandad thought you'd die if you travelled faster than 30mph.

He was born in 1843 so that might not have been a too-surprising
attitude.

But if so, he was wrong.
New thinking is needed.
Not drivel from the past.

The age of cheap fossil fuel is almost over.

Not with coal and gas.

We must use what remains as sparingly as possible to set us on the new
renewable technology.

We should be using nukes.

Which age need never be over.
And won't poison us or our children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pol...Health_effects

Nukes don’t produce any of that.

It produces worse.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel
in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able
to
do that.

Brain dead as usual.
All diesel engines produce NOx and carbon particles.

I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread isn't
about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers petrol and
diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels like LPG and
so
on.

The tread is about synthetic diesel engine fuel.

Funny, the thread title in *my* newsreader is:

Synthetic fuel from green energy - News

doesn't mention diesel at all. What planet are you on, again?

Are you brain dead?
Very firstline on the article.
Audi creates green 'e-diesel fuel of the future' using just carbon dioxide
and water

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
I wasn't talking about diesel engines. Why would I when the thread
isn't about them? 'IC' refers to internal combustion which covers
petrol and diesel types as well as those running on alternative fuels
like LPG and so on.

The tread is about synthetic diesel engine fuel.

It's either diesel or it isn't. Or perhaps you consider alcohol or
hydrogen that a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

A compression ignition engine can also run on a variety of fuels, other
than diesel. And if you think all fuels produce the same by products when
burned, you're even more stupid than I first thought.

All the fuels are hydrocarbons and produce similar (nasty) emissions.

On Thursday, 30 April 2015 06:35:09 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 06:12, nt wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

I shan't agree

At least in terms of major break throughs.


NT

On 30/04/15 08:19, wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 06:35:09 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/04/15 06:12, nt wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

I shan't agree

Well I suppose you might dream up a new crypto algorithm in yer garden shed.




At least in terms of major break throughs.


NT



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:21:22 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


The proles always drive Fords et al.
The rich drive BMWs.
Eccentric old Pensioners
drive electric

G.Harman

On 30/04/15 08:26, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:21:22 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


The proles always drive Fords et al.
The rich drive BMWs.
Eccentric old Pensioners
drive into walls and other cars

G.Harman


There, I fixed that for you.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
t...
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is
not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream
alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.

That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you
have some kind of education? and know something about history, culture
and the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that
Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of
ready-meals and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity
like the emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were
all victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow,
complacent wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you
pretend you can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world
is driven by the relentless petty choices of small minded people always
selecting the cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about
through vision and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it
about. You know that already.

Apart from the eradication of smallpox, everything you are describing
concerns human actions. You do something, or you don't; you make a
choice. Even the eradication of smallpox, now I come to think of it, in
fact falls into that category. That happened because it was technically
and practically possible, and because of an act of will on the part of
the WHO. In principle, you could eradicate the common house fly, too,
except that would most likely be impractical.

The sort of stuff that you seem to be talking about, however, is *not*
technically possible. Things in that category will *never* get done,
regardless of how much "vision", "faith", or any other damn human
emotion there is to bolster up the "hope". You want an everyday car
running only on solar power, with batteries perhaps for night use? Not
possible. Not possible however much research money, or indeed "faith",
you throw at it. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Yes well lots of things were impossible to the brain dead in the past.
Steam locomotives, motorcars, heavier than air flight, supersonic flight,
space flight, radio, photography. television, computers, jet engine,
microprocessors etc etc.

Er no, they weren't impossible harry. Thass the point. None of these
breaks any physical law. Possibly, if some natural philosopher in the
18thC was asked about some of these, he'd might have said "May be
possible but we don't know enough about nature to say one way or the
other" but that's *all* he could have said. A 100 years or so later he
might have said "Yes we broadly speaking understand how to do this but
we can't build a vessel strong enough (or light enough, or whatever) to
make the item in question a *practical* proposition.

After all, planes flew in the early 20thC. Didn't mean that the
following Tuesday fortnight they'd be rolling out the A380. Equally,
only a fool might have said that heavier-than-air flight was
impossible. Unless they believed that birds flew by magic, of course.

The difference is that too many of today's idiots believe in magic or
that a bit of development ought to allow us to have solar panels that
could go on the roof of the car or a plane's wings so that the
car/plane needs no other energy source.

Well one already exists.
What you don't realise is that if some technology could be found to reduce
drag sufficiently, then it wuld be easily possible.

That isn't going to happen now, we have been
doing planes and cars for too long now.

They were impossible to most people.
eg There were windmills in the ancient Middle East.
Only now they are approaching anything like their full potenial.

People back then were as ignorant as some here today.
Most thought that all knowledge came from the bible.
ie, the only manned heavier than air flight possible was angels (held
aloft by the holy spirit.)
And the Earth was flat and seven thousand years old.
And lead could be "transmuted" to gold with the "philosopher's stone".

People were burned to death for believing otherwise.
And it was Leonardo da Vinci designed the first aircraft including
helicopters.
He could have been burned for that too.
A model aircraft has been found in an ancient Egyptian tomb.

TurNiP is one of these people who would burn people for not believing in
the nuclear myth/God.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 23:21, Capitol wrote:
The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest
long term solution, as that's all they can afford.

Its not even in the end a choice. A society that chooses expensive not
very effective ways of doing things will not be able to stand against a
society that chooses cheaper and more effective ways.

Europe colonised the world because it had technology at its disposal.

Europe colonised the world long before the steam engine.

Using the technology of ocean going ships.

In many cases driven by religion and greed.

It was money that made it all possible.

It was much more the drive to do it that made it possible.

The concentration of wealth.

Doesn’t explain the Vikings that rampaged
over a surprising amount of the world.

Accumulating yet more wealth.
An upward spiral.
(Which is why socialism always fails.)

Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.


More socialist myths.

Facts, actually.

Norway has a conservatve government ****-fer-brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Irrelevant to the fact that their oil and gas is government
owned and so is quite a bit of their hydro too. You can't
get any more socialist than that and when their GDP per
capita is fourth in the entire world, only a fool/bigot would
be stupid enough to claim that that is anything like a failure.

Brain dead Socialism always fails wherever implemented.

It clearly did not in Norway.

Or anywhere else that has a govt owned public
road system, and govt owned education system.

Cheaper is rarely more effective.
Eg Smart bombs v. dumb bombs.
Rifles v. muskets

You get the opposite effect with much technology,
cheaper makes it viable for everyone to have it.

The proles always drive Fords et al.

Cheaper is clearly more effective with that type of technology.

The rich drive BMWs.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with more effective.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/04/15 22:04, Simon Brown wrote:
Hasn't failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

when you have a population as low as they have and as much oil/gas as
they have you can afford socialism. Till the oil runs out....

Not that they are even socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Solberg

Of course they are when the government owns
the oil and gas and much of the hydro industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Resources

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:28:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/04/15 08:26, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:21:22 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


The proles always drive Fords et al.
The rich drive BMWs.
Eccentric old Pensioners
drive into walls and other cars

G.Harman


There, I fixed that for you.

Is that wishful thinking about Harry?


G.Harman

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Simon Brown wrote:
Socialism etc


Hasn’t failed in Norway. They have done much better
with their socialised oil and gas system than Britain has.

Norway has major social problems.

Everywhere does.

The people largely work in non jobs for the state

Oh bull****.

and cannot afford to use restaurants or bars.

Bull****.

The exchange rate is unreal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy...ained _growth

Leaves Britain for dead on GDP per capital and a host of other areas as
well.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...
Drivel.
We have created an economy that is now poisoning us all.

It is poisoning us a lot less than it used to at the height of the
industrial revolution. We just don’t get smog like we used to.

The pollutants are just more subtle and widespread.

No, most obviously with smog.

And will be much harder to fix.

Much easier to fix when power stations
don’t churn out exhaust gases and we
use nukes that consume all of the
radioactive materials put into them.

That will never happen.

Yes it will, you watch.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It's either diesel or it isn't.

There is a difference between making it from crude oil and from CO2.

I refer you to the sentence below.

Or perhaps you consider alcohol or hydrogen that
a petrol engine can run on just synthetic petrol?

Collins GEM English Dictionary
diesel n. ˜diesel oil fuel obtained from petroleum distillation.

A fuel made from other than that may well work in a CI engine, but isn't
diesel oil.

But then accuracy was never of much importance to you.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
wrote:
The proles always drive Fords et al.
The rich drive BMWs.
Eccentric old Pensioners
drive electric

Hey. I'm an eccentric pensioner and drive a BMW. ;-)

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 22:56, Tim w wrote:
You know that Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of
a
world of ready-meals and Ant and Dec?

No. it was defeated by hard works and superior technology actually, and
a bit of luck.

Fascism was defeated by money.


Fascism was defeated by the yanks choosing to get involved.

Hitler declared war on America after the Pearl Harbour attack.

Irrelevant to whether the yanks got involved in europe, again.

He had a pact with Japan.

Yes.

The Yanks had no choice.

Of course they did. They could have concentrated on Japan and
made an obscene gesture in the general direction of europe
that was furiously ripping each other's throats out, again.

They were no friends of ours.

If the yanks had just ignored europe, your parents would
have been shipped off to the gas chambers and crematoria
and you wouldn’t have even been born.

They had a plan at that time to invade Canada.
And were making preparations to do so.

But had no possibility of ever doing that.

Money to provide the industry and the waepons.

It was about much more than just money.

Everything is about money.

No, the industrial revolution didn’t
happen in Britain because of money.

Neither did the Vikings, or the Romans, or the Normans.

Hitler hoped to form an alliance with us.

Yes. And you lot would have put your hands up eventually
if the yanks had just made an obscene gesture in your
general direction and had continued to fund Hitler.

"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Simon Brown" wrote in message
...


"harryagain" wrote in message
...

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim w" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put
socks in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the
constant, dismal, negative, droning.

He's just a poor old man, living in the past and can't see past the end
of his nose.

I bet his grandad thought you'd die if you travelled faster than 30mph.

He was born in 1843 so that might not have been a too-surprising
attitude.

But if so, he was wrong.
New thinking is needed.
Not drivel from the past.

The age of cheap fossil fuel is almost over.

Not with coal and gas.

We must use what remains as sparingly as possible to set us on the new
renewable technology.

We should be using nukes.

Which age need never be over.
And won't poison us or our children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pol...Health_effects

Nukes don’t produce any of that.

It produces worse.

What gets added to the atmosphere by nukes is
much less than coal fired power stations alone.

On 30/04/15 08:39, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/04/15 06:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 18:41:38 UTC+1, harry wrote:

Advancement rarely comes by accident these days.
Inventors "stand on the shoulders" of their predeccesors.
So if you have no education, you are unlikely to invent anything.
Or even have an idea of what's possible.

yes

Virtually all the easy stuff has been found out.
No more inventions in garden sheds these days.

utter rubbish

Sadly not true.

Fraid so.

At least in terms of major break throughs.

That isn't true either, most obviously with apps.

Do you really thing apps are a serious breakthrough?

Inventing the transistor was a serious breakthrough. Not coding up a bit
of java




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 30/04/15 09:59, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:28:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/04/15 08:26, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:21:22 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


The proles always drive Fords et al.
The rich drive BMWs.
Eccentric old Pensioners
drive into walls and other cars

G.Harman


There, I fixed that for you.

Is that wishful thinking about Harry?


Could well be

My mother drive slap bang into a stationary lorry and wrote her mini
off. 'I forgot where the brake pedal was'.

She forgot almost everything before the end.

Her last words to me apart from 'it hurts' were 'I've been out for a
walk with my mother'

She (her mother) died in 1968.

G.Harman



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll