BBC Trust approves Project Canvas
Java Jive
kick-start demand for internet TV."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10414215.stm
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Brian Gaff
sending media over this way?
PS I think your footer about replying to the group is a bit rich went you
post a link and not at least the basic details. Very lazy if I may say so..
Ducks behind cactus.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:7jpc265aumhqqg9fo...@4ax.com...
Graham Murray
> So, who is going to pay for the capacity on the Internet if everyone starts
> sending media over this way?
Whoever uses it. The providers will pay for their bandwidth to the
'backbone' or peering points. The viewers will pay for their bandwidth
from the ISPs.
The dog from that film you saw
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i06t88$604$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> So, who is going to pay for the capacity on the Internet if everyone
> starts sending media over this way?
> PS I think your footer about replying to the group is a bit rich went you
> post a link and not at least the basic details. Very lazy if I may say
> so..
> Ducks behind cactus.
you already pay your ISP - it's their fault if they are too stupid to charge
you a price that allows them a profit margin.
--
Gareth.
that fly...... is your magic wand....
http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com
you fight better when you have a bear!
Java Jive
article, which gave the basic details.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 08:05:46 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> PS I think your footer about replying to the group is a bit rich went you
> post a link and not at least the basic details. Very lazy if I may say so..
> Ducks behind cactus.
Graham.
"Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:i06t88$604$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> So, who is going to pay for the capacity on the Internet if everyone starts sending media over this way?
> PS I think your footer about replying to the group is a bit rich went you post a link and not at least the basic details. Very
> lazy if I may say so..
> Ducks behind cactus.
>
> Brian
I may be wrong but I think that "Please reply via Newsgroup" signature just harks back
to a bygone era when Usenet was populated mainly with academic types, and
a response might just as easily posted privately via email as publicly via the Group.
Not as good as your Bcc: sig. That really hits the spot.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Jim Lesurf
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:i06t88$604$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > So, who is going to pay for the capacity on the Internet if everyone
> > starts sending media over this way? PS I think your footer about
> > replying to the group is a bit rich went you post a link and not at
> > least the basic details. Very lazy if I may say so.. Ducks behind
> > cactus.
> >
> > Brian
> I may be wrong but I think that "Please reply via Newsgroup" signature
> just harks back to a bygone era when Usenet was populated mainly with
> academic types,
Puzzled by that. If someone is reading a newsgroup I'd assume they should
be capable of posting replies there. That also helps preserve threading,
etc. What you write makes it sound like only 'academics' are brainy enough
to use a newgroup correctly! :-)
> and a response might just as easily posted privately via email as
> publicly via the Group.
Not sure what you mean here. How do other readers of the newsgroup where a
post was made get to read replies "posted <sic> privately by email"?
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
charles
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <i07lje$d9k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Graham.
> <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > "Brian Gaff" <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:i06t88$604$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > > So, who is going to pay for the capacity on the Internet if everyone
> > > starts sending media over this way? PS I think your footer about
> > > replying to the group is a bit rich went you post a link and not at
> > > least the basic details. Very lazy if I may say so.. Ducks behind
> > > cactus.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > I may be wrong but I think that "Please reply via Newsgroup" signature
> > just harks back to a bygone era when Usenet was populated mainly with
> > academic types,
> Puzzled by that. If someone is reading a newsgroup I'd assume they should
> be capable of posting replies there. That also helps preserve threading,
> etc. What you write makes it sound like only 'academics' are brainy enough
> to use a newgroup correctly! :-)
> > and a response might just as easily posted privately via email as
> > publicly via the Group.
> Not sure what you mean here. How do other readers of the newsgroup where a
> post was made get to read replies "posted <sic> privately by email"?
If the answer is to a question that might be applicable to more than the OP
then I'd prefer a public reply. If, however, the OP has a unique problem,
then why bother others with the answer.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
John
Because what happened to the OP may happen to others in future. Usenet is
getting overrun by spammers and numpties these days but it was once a
valuable source of information, available to the public. A question asked in
public should be answered in public so that we can all increase our
knowledge.
Brian Gaff
doubtful expression...
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Graham Murray" <news...@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87wrtld...@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
J G Miller
> What you write makes it sound like only 'academics' are
> brainy enough to use a newgroup correctly! :-)
It was only academics who were brainy enough to create
UseNet and the associated newsgroups in the first place.
Adrian C
Everyone will pay. Even non-viewers of high bandwidth streaming
services. :-(
I suppose eventually the BBC will claim the internet service as one of
their licenseable UK viewer _live_ transmission formats and then claim a
license fee for all UK premises with an internet connection or count of
PCs, regardless of other individual use.
Has anyone said that the above unequivocally won't happen?
Haven't looked, but are the BBC Trust concerned or interested in this?
--
Adrian C
Jim Lesurf
Yes. In addition, if the reply is actually incorrect or incomplete it gives
others a chance to respond with a correction or further info. And this
means it also gives the OP more confidence if a reply is *not* corrected
when openly given. Usenet is not a write-only medium for a set of good
reasons.
Andy Champ
>
> Everyone will pay. Even non-viewers of high bandwidth streaming
> services. :-(
>
> I suppose eventually the BBC will claim the internet service as one of
> their licenseable UK viewer _live_ transmission formats and then claim a
> license fee for all UK premises with an internet connection or count of
> PCs, regardless of other individual use.
>
> Has anyone said that the above unequivocally won't happen?
>
> Haven't looked, but are the BBC Trust concerned or interested in this?
>
The BBC already state that if you download from iPlayer or watch an
on-demand stream you don't need a licence, but if you stream a broadcast
you do.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html
AKA
http://tinyurl.com/2yzekc
Andy
Adrian C
> The BBC already state that if you download from iPlayer or watch an
> on-demand stream you don't need a licence, but if you stream a broadcast
> you do.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html
>
> AKA
> http://tinyurl.com/2yzekc
>
True at the moment we are being trusted to play fair, and the wheels of
the licensing department aren't poised as yet to count connections by
doorstep or the number of computers in the house. Yet....
Say we wind forward a triple of decades and by a miracle we all have
gigbit fibre to our door and dishes and aerials are all recycled as
hover cars and coke cans. Meanwhile the airwaves are also given over to
IP based mobile communications things like the Microsoft iPhone 9 given
away free in each pack of Corn Flakes...
How is the BBC going to be funded then?
--
Adrian C
J G Miller
>
> How is the BBC going to be funded then?
Uncle Rupert will be advising David Cameron how to do
that in the last quarter of 2014 and early 2015.
Nostradamus
> How is the BBC going to be funded then?
In 2040 all BBC output is encrypted and can only be decoded by an
uncrackable chip available for all media devices at your local
government licensed Cannabis Superstore. The yearly top-up fee is
currently ￜ2,500.
--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
J G Miller
>
> at your local government licensed Cannabis Superstore.
Only the myopic think that such a thing could not happen.
Ivan
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:i0b6o3$dif$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Well one thing's for certain the next 30 years are going to be very
different from the ones that preceded them, by 2040 we will probably need a
new opiate of the masses and our brains hard wired to be able to cope with
the brave new world that awaits us!
Albert Ross
wrote:
Donations from the Tories?
By then it will be owned by Murdoch.
Albert Ross
wrote:
It's going to need to be cheap considering the millions about to be
thrown on the dole, and then given no money.
Anth
"Albert Ross" <spam@dev_null.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:trij26l8j52onn18q...@4ax.com...
To be honest with you IMV the whole of the Western world he's going to be in
for one big shock as the realization sinks in that the lifestyles that we
have known and loved for the last 60 years will soon become a thing of the
past, i.e. can you see how this country is comfortably going to sustain
70,000,000 plus people within another 20 years?
If you wonder why this reply is coming from Anth instead of Ivan, it's
because for some reason I can't access Virginmedia (for some reason my posts
just hang in the outbox) so I'm having to use my son's little used
eternal-september account, which still appears to be working OK.
tony sayer
>because for some reason I can't access Virginmedia (for some reason my posts
>just hang in the outbox) so I'm having to use my son's little used
>eternal-september account, which still appears to be working OK.
>
Well convert to that then, a bit of the future assured;)...
--
Tony Sayer
Ivan
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5RstKQGj...@bancom.co.uk...
I used to be with individual. Net which was a very good ISP, however they
made the relatively simple matter of trying to renew the existing account
akin to entering for the Krypton factor, so I reverted back to using
Blueyonder, which again was OK (as was Virgin originally) although they
appear to have been changing things around in recent months leaving my mail
server with annoying (albeit brief) periods of inactivity, so I have on
recent occasions had to resort to using the eternal-september account, which
as you say, would probably be a good idea to switch to permanently.
Interestingly, setting up a 'Live Mail' account in W7 on a recently
purchased Aldi Medion computer, I found that it was much easier than setting
up an original account (also using WLM on W7) on this machine, no POP3 or
SMTP details required, just had to provide username and password and that
was it, everything done, 'simples'!
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>I used to be with individual. Net which was a very good ISP, however they
>made the relatively simple matter of trying to renew the existing account
>akin to entering for the Krypton factor,
I use individual.net and have had no trouble with renewals. However, I
know others who have. I think the problems might have been sorted.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Ivan
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:jj0k26558brev0b6p...@4ax.com...
Thanks Peter, I've now set up a permanent account with eternal-september and
touch wood it's now all working fine.
Stephen
>
>"Albert Ross" <spam@dev_null.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:trij26l8j52onn18q...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:06:15 +0100, "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
>>>news:i0b6o3$dif$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Monday, June 28th, 2010 at 22:46:25h +0100, Nostradamus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> at your local government licensed Cannabis Superstore.
>>>>
>>>> Only the myopic think that such a thing could not happen.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.reuters.COM/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well one thing's for certain the next 30 years are going to be very
>>>different from the ones that preceded them, by 2040 we will probably need
>>>a
>>>new opiate of the masses and our brains hard wired to be able to cope with
>>>the brave new world that awaits us!
>>
>> It's going to need to be cheap considering the millions about to be
>> thrown on the dole, and then given no money.
>>
>
>To be honest with you IMV the whole of the Western world he's going to be in
>for one big shock as the realization sinks in that the lifestyles that we
>have known and loved for the last 60 years will soon become a thing of the
>past, i.e. can you see how this country is comfortably going to sustain
>70,000,000 plus people within another 20 years?
have a look at the population density of the UK compared to other nice
to live in countries - a 10 to 15% rise doesnt seem such a big deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
maybe more of a problem for all those crammed inside the M25.......
>If you wonder why this reply is coming from Anth instead of Ivan, it's
>because for some reason I can't access Virginmedia (for some reason my posts
>just hang in the outbox) so I'm having to use my son's little used
>eternal-september account, which still appears to be working OK.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Regards
stephe...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
Ivan
"Stephen" <stephe...@xyzworld.com> wrote in message
news:1rhk26l1kfl3hkcr7...@4ax.com...
So you're quite happy then in the knowledge that a city the size of Bristol,
along with all of the necessary infrastructure will be provided by any UK
government every single year for bloody the next 20 years?
IMHO even if that were possible, I don't think it could be achieved without
a lot of 'bloody' opposition.
"The UK's leading sustainable development NGO warns that the UK will
struggle to meet the needs of a population officially projected to reach 70
million by 2030. This is nine million more than in 2008: the equivalent of
adding one city the size of Bristol every year.
It analyses the implications in a new report, Growing Pains: Population and
Sustainability. Britain will need new houses, schools, hospitals and other
infrastructure to support millions more people. Demand for food, water and
other resources will increase, along with waste and pollution."
<http://www.forumforthefuture.org/press-release/growing-pains>
"The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to
support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century,
and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than
30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website and
available to all members in the OPT Journal."
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
>
>
Java Jive
population level is EVERYTHING!
I'm glad I won't be around in 2030.
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:01:11 +0100, "Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> So you're quite happy then in the knowledge that a city the size of Bristol,
> along with all of the necessary infrastructure will be provided by any UK
> government every single year for bloody the next 20 years?
> IMHO even if that were possible, I don't think it could be achieved without
> a lot of 'bloody' opposition.
>
> "The UK's leading sustainable development NGO warns that the UK will
> struggle to meet the needs of a population officially projected to reach 70
> million by 2030. This is nine million more than in 2008: the equivalent of
> adding one city the size of Bristol every year.
> It analyses the implications in a new report, Growing Pains: Population and
> Sustainability. Britain will need new houses, schools, hospitals and other
> infrastructure to support millions more people. Demand for food, water and
> other resources will increase, along with waste and pollution."
>
> <http://www.forumforthefuture.org/press-release/growing-pains>
>
> "The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to
> support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century,
> and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than
> 30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website and
> available to all members in the OPT Journal."
>
> http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Andy Champ
>> to live in countries - a 10 to 15% rise doesnt seem such a big deal.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
>>
Let's see - population of SE England (ex London) is 419/sq km. Where's
higher?
A whole lot of Island/city states (Jersey, Hongkong, etc). Of the
larger countries? Taiwan and South Korea, which are not exactly known
for wide open spaces.
And Bangladesh. Which is renowned for its famines.
Andy.
Ivan
"Andy Champ" <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvKdnUGrSMc_GLbR...@eclipse.net.uk...
You're right Andy, just because people 'can' and 'do' exist in densely
populated environments, doesn't necessarily mean that given any kind of
choice it's a lifestyle choice that anyone in their right mind would choose
to emulate.
As with this high-rise housing complex in Hong Kong
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/2960915899_183ec082bf_b.jpg> give me my
house and garden in rural Scrumpyland any day of the week!
>
>
Stephen
wrote:
i didnt say that, but no i dont like that idea.
You implied the increase to 70m is enough to change the country
completely, and I pointed out a 10% change is unlikely to have that
effect.
Also if you measure population density rather than absolute numbers
then there are more densely populated countries elsewhere in the world
/ Europe with a higher standard of living, so more people on the same
sized island is not intrinsically disastrous.
>"The UK's leading sustainable development NGO warns that the UK will
>struggle to meet the needs of a population officially projected to reach 70
>million by 2030. This is nine million more than in 2008: the equivalent of
>adding one city the size of Bristol every year.
Since we have had population growth for a long time and havent started
a new city from scratch since the "new towns" in the 1950s i suspect
this is just meant to illustrate the issue.
anyhow doesnt changing demographics such as fewer families living
together already cause a bigger change in home numbers and their
resource use?
>It analyses the implications in a new report, Growing Pains: Population and
>Sustainability. Britain will need new houses, schools, hospitals and other
>infrastructure to support millions more people. Demand for food, water and
>other resources will increase, along with waste and pollution."
>
><http://www.forumforthefuture.org/press-release/growing-pains>
>
from that page you quote, they in turn quote a report:
* The Office for National Statistics National Population Projections,
2009, projects that the UK population will rise from an estimated 61.4
million in 2008 to 70.6 million in 2030.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=8519
so 9.2m over 22 years.
the caveats in the report are worth reading in FAQ
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/NPP2008/NPPFAQ.pdf
>"The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to
>support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century,
>and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than
>30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website and
>available to all members in the OPT Journal."
>
>http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Ivan
|
Well I certainly won't be around to be able to say 'I told you so', but my
own pessimistic view is that we won't be able to sustain our population at
its present level in the style they have grown accustomed to and come to
expect over the last 60 years, let alone an additional 10,000,000 extra
souls on this tiny overcrowded island of ours, at least not without some
kind of breakdown 'social cohesion' (sic) and a serious reduction in the
overall quality of life.
Although I'm no fan of the man, Paddy Ashdown gave a whole raft of reasons
to a BBC 'Question Time' audience a couple of years back, about why (like
myself) he believes that the halcyon days of 'Never Had It So Good' and
endless economic growth are gone for good, not only for the UK but for the
Western World in general.
Stephen
wrote:
so the moral is - dont live in SE England?
>
>And Bangladesh. Which is renowned for its famines.
>
>Andy.
Java Jive
<stephe...@xyzworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:57:56 +0100, Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >"Stephen" <stephe...@xyzworld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1rhk26l1kfl3hkcr7...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>> have a look at the population density of the UK compared to other nice
> >>> to live in countries - a 10 to 15% rise doesnt seem such a big deal.
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
> >
> >Let's see - population of SE England (ex London) is 419/sq km. Where's
> >higher?
> >
> >A whole lot of Island/city states (Jersey, Hongkong, etc). Of the
> >larger countries? Taiwan and South Korea, which are not exactly known
> >for wide open spaces.
I repeat, as far as environmental impact is concerned, population
level is *everything*. The more people, the more there is of
everything else - houses, fixtures, fittings, furnishings, personal
possesions, factories, business parks, cars, roads, railways,
airports, water infrastructure, sewerage infrastructure, electricity
infrastructure, gas infrastructure, household waste, litter, crime,
pollution, etc, etc.
Resources, energy, and finance to make, power, manage, and buy all
these things have to be found. This means increasing energy demand at
a time when we are told we must use less of it, increasing imports of
raw materials or manufactured goods when we aren't as a nation earning
enough to pay for them. I cannot see any way at all that we can
sustain our current standard of living.
Population of Britain:
Napoleonic Wars 12m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars#Military_legacy
Today 61m
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6
This growth is approximately equivalent to a compound growth of 8% per
decade. Doesn't sound so bad, does it? But ...
1) It's compound, a 'vicious circle', the higher the population, the
greater the actual numerical increases, while the resources needed can
usually only increase linearly.
2) For the first 100 to 140 years, we were the major world power, and
so controlled to our advantage trade in the resources that our
population needed. Also, environmental concerns such as pollution
were not of sufficient concern to halt progress, and the possibility
of global warming presumably hadn't occurred to anyone.
3) The decline in our power since WWII has been accompanied by
increasing economic difficulties such as record levels of
unemployment, Balance Of Payments deficits caused by increasing levels
of imports, etc.
4) It's only half what is being mooted for the coming decades.
5) Immigration is ongoing, despite the fact that we are already one
of the most densely populated countries of any size in world.
Current Population Density:
Global average 48/km2
Western Europe 175/km2
Britain 244/km2
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2006/Table01.pdf
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7662
Current self-sufficiency:
All food 60%
'Indigenous' crops 72.5%
Energy 79%
https://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/quick/agri.asp
http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/statistics/source/total/page18424.html
So already in this country there are more of us than we can actually
supply with natively grown food or natively found energy. Meanwhile,
the amount of available land is becoming scarce and expensive, and our
standard of living, and also therefore of expectation, is very high.
This in turn means that manufacturing costs here are so high that our
manufacturing base has slumped over the last 25-30 years. Not
everyone can be a financial wizkid, and only so many people can
service their offices, so how are the rest of us going to earn a
crust?
> so the moral is - dont live in SE England?
But you have to follow the work.
I used to work in the Bristol office of a large multinational
corporate finance firm, commuting from my home in the Forest Of Dean.
It was an awful lot of travelling, barely thinkable now, but at least
when I got home, I had a relatively unpolluted, quiet lifestyle, free
from moronic yooves and brats, with a night sky I could see the stars
in, partridges, pheasants, two different types of woodpeckers,
nightjars, foxes, badgers, in the garden, and above all a truly
breathtaking view over the Wye Valley.
But I was having some trouble with my immediate boss, a dishonest
maverick who one day went too far, causing me to involve the police.
To resolve the conflict, the firm, who really should have sacked her
then and there, although that did come a while later, made me an offer
I couldn't refuse: move to Reading. What had seemed like a
significant pay-rise with promotion was completely wiped out by the
price of housing around here. So I gained little financially, and
lost my dream home which I'd just about finished rebuilding (wish to
god now that I'd rented it out rather than sold it).
Then after a couple of years they started moving all their IT people
into London. I'd had enough of London by the time I'd gone through
6th form college (as we'd call it now), refused to go, and
unsurprisingly was eventually offered voluntary reduncancy instead.
The big cities, and the big corporations who sit at the middle of
their web, are like black holes sucking in everything about them. All
the employment moves there, and consequently the housing, and
consequent to that the shops and schools, etc, etc. In some cities,
the demand for and price of housing is so high that 'normal' people
such as police officers, fireman, nurses, etc, cannot afford to live
amongst the people who benefit from their services - I've heard of
fireman commuting from some West Country town to work somewhere in
Central Southern England, because they can't actually afford to live
anywhere near where they work.
Meanwhile, in the small country towns, there's little employment. You
might find a few antique shops, and, if you're lucky, a post office
and a decent pub or two, perhaps a garage forecourt with some sort of
convenience shop.
In the villages, I suspect most of the post-offices have long gone, in
fact these days you'd probably be lucky to find a shop. There might
be a bus two or three times a day into the local town, or it might be
two or three times a week! There may even be one into the nearest big
city, starting at some ungodly hour like 6 am and winding its way
through tens of villages, so that the few people in each without own
transport can commute to where the work is.
So the countryside - which used to employ the vast majority of the
population and thus was where the majority of them lived as recently
as the latter half of the 1800s, spread out in little hamlets like
'Lark Rise' (which was actually Juniper Hill) - is now the dormitory
of the comparatively rich, and the occasional playground of us (for
sadly I have to include myself now) city folk when we're lucky enough
to be able to afford and enjoy a weekend or a holiday in it.
tony sayer
>supply with natively grown food or natively found energy. Meanwhile,
>the amount of available land is becoming scarce and expensive,
Umm.. where's it going then?..
>and our
>standard of living, and also therefore of expectation, is very high.
>This in turn means that manufacturing costs here are so high that our
>manufacturing base has slumped over the last 25-30 years. Not
>everyone can be a financial wizkid, and only so many people can
>service their offices, so how are the rest of us going to earn a
>crust?
Reduce what we pay ourselves then!. Simple eh;?..
Except that people don't want to do that ..
>
>> so the moral is - dont live in SE England?
So where else then?..
>
>But you have to follow the work.
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
agriculture, tens or hundreds of 1000s of hectares were being lost
under development every year. (The house I'm writing this from was
farmland as recently as the 1970s or early 80s.) I haven't been able
to find the sort of easily digestible pie chart or graph that I saw
then, but here are some points for thought ...
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/people-places/planning/land-use
"In 2007, on a provisional estimate, 77 per cent of new dwellings were
built on previously-developed land, at a density of 44 dwellings per
hectare."
So where are the other 23% going?
"Around 2 per cent of new dwellings were built within the Green Belt
and around 10 per cent of new dwellings were built in areas of high
flood risk."
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/lucs2009provisionalmay
"In 2009, on a provisional estimate:
* 80 per cent of dwellings (including conversions) were built on
previously-developed land, unchanged from 2008."
So where are the other 20% going?
" * new dwellings were built at an average density of 45 dwellings
per hectare, compared to 43 dwellings per hectare in 2008.
In 2008, on a provisional estimate:
* 2 per cent of dwellings were built within the Green Belt
(unchanged since 2004) and 7 per cent of land changing to residential
use (from any use) was within the Green Belt (an increase from 5 per
cent in 2007).
* 9 per cent of dwellings were built within areas of high flood
risk (unchanged since 2006) and 6 per cent of land changing to
residential use was within areas of high flood risk (unchanged from
2007)."
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/land/ldurban.htm
"Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 [2], published in March 2000, sets
out the Government's target for recycling of land. This states that,
by 2008, 60 per cent of additional housing should be provided on
previously developed land and through the conversion of existing
buildings."
Where does the land for the other 40% come from?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:08:59 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Umm.. where's it going then?..
Ivan
"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:d8uo265b1tlgbfklj...@4ax.com...
> Disappearing under tarmac and concrete. IIRC from when I was in
> agriculture, tens or hundreds of 1000s of hectares were being lost
> under development every year. (The house I'm writing this from was
> farmland as recently as the 1970s or early 80s.) I haven't been able
> to find the sort of easily digestible pie chart or graph that I saw
> then, but here are some points for thought ...
>
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/people-places/planning/land-use
>
> "In 2007, on a provisional estimate, 77 per cent of new dwellings were
> built on previously-developed land, at a density of 44 dwellings per
> hectare."
>
> So where are the other 23% going?
>
> "Around 2 per cent of new dwellings were built within the Green Belt
> and around 10 per cent of new dwellings were built in areas of high
> flood risk."
>
I can verify that, I live in what was once leafy Somerset, where we were
told (before John Prescott arrived on the scene) that the greenbelt was
sacrosanct and would never ever be built on, now it seems that everything is
up for grabs, with so much farmland being turned over to huge new housing
developments.
>
>
charles
Ivan <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
john Prescott said "The Greenbelt is a Labour achievement - let us build on
it!"
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Ivan
"charles" <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:51301820...@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
LOL, I like it!
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>Disappearing under tarmac and concrete. IIRC from when I was in
>agriculture, tens or hundreds of 1000s of hectares were being lost
>under development every year. (The house I'm writing this from was
>farmland as recently as the 1970s or early 80s.) I haven't been able
>to find the sort of easily digestible pie chart or graph that I saw
>then, but here are some points for thought ...
>
Humm.. Perhaps it doesn't happen that much in Cambridgeshire which is
prime growing ground. It always amazes me that when flying in a small
aircraft just how much of the country isn't built on;!...
--
Tony Sayer
Ivan
That's fine then Tony, let's fucking bury it under a city the size of
Bristol every year for the foreseeable future, if it'll make you happier..
tony sayer
<ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> scribeth thus
Oi!, I'm not going to be made happier by that M8!...
Just observing what I see, perhaps its markedly different in your
backyard wherever that might be;!...
--
Tony Sayer
Ivan
Apologies if I've got you wrong Tony, but I'm thoroughly pissed off reading
the posts of some of the loonies on various newsgroups saying that they
don't think the world should have any borders, presumably meaning that if
Mr. Mbeko and his extended family in Bongo Bongo land feel like moving to
Great Britain, then they should simply be able to hop on a plane and do so.
This is usually because these Dave Spart characters have observed from the
window on a train journey that there are lots of those things farmers call
fields, you know those bits of land with that green stuff growing on it,
therefore why do we need repressive planning laws, after all if you own land
why 'shouldn't' you be able to build exactly what you like on it?
|
Java Jive
You can see quite clearly the recent (last 50 years or so) overspill
areas filling former fields demarked by formerly quiet country lanes
with new estates. They look quite green from the air because they've
all got gardens. But that also means, although some owners may try to
grow something edible, they've been lost to agriculture probably for
ever, and also they may be gravelled or paved over at the whim of any
owner, no planning permission needed, creating more water run-off in
storms.
Also Cambridge Airport, for example, wasn't there when I was growing
up. I dare say if I tried I could find lots more, but probably the
best thing to do would be to find historical maps of 50, 100, and 200
years ago and compare them to now. You'd soon notice the difference
then.
If you take the attitude that you can always purchase more
agricultural land to build on, then how are you going to feed the
extra people?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 20:16:23 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <d8uo265b1tlgbfklj...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
J G Miller
> presumably meaning that if Mr. Mbeko and his extended family
> in Bongo Bongo land feel like moving to Great Britain, then
> they should simply be able to hop on a plane and do so.
Assuming that you are a subject of Her Britannic Majesty,
you could hop on a plane and go and live in eg Bulgaria, Hungary,
Poland, or Romania if you felt like it.
charles
> Also Cambridge Airport, for example, wasn't there when I was growing
> up.
You must have grown up a very, very long time ago. Marshalls have been
flying from the site since 1937, although they may not have called it an
airport.
Richard Brooks
Carousel!
tony sayer
Well just as well some of them are over here, recently I had a month in
hospital and most all of the nurses were non-Brits .. seems like the
Taxi drivers the native English only want to work 9 to 5 weekdays
nowadays;!...
>This is usually because these Dave Spart characters have observed from the
>window on a train journey that there are lots of those things farmers call
>fields, you know those bits of land with that green stuff growing on it,
>therefore why do we need repressive planning laws, after all if you own land
>why 'shouldn't' you be able to build exactly what you like on it?
>
There're building a 2000 house estate in our backyard before long the
Clay Farm development, seems the landowner if he wasn't wealthy enough
is now going to make an absolute killing!. They still think they own the
land our gaff was built on..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=cambridge+newmarke
>t+road&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newmarket+Rd,+Cambridge,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.209816,0.
>132008&spn=0.046704,0.160847&t=h&z=13
>
>You can see quite clearly the recent (last 50 years or so) overspill
>areas filling former fields demarked by formerly quiet country lanes
>with new estates. They look quite green from the air because they've
>all got gardens. But that also means, although some owners may try to
>grow something edible, they've been lost to agriculture probably for
>ever, and also they may be gravelled or paved over at the whim of any
>owner, no planning permission needed, creating more water run-off in
>storms.
It seems amongst a lot of people I know that having your own allotment
is the in thing these days!, no one goes on about their new car anymore
its what's on the "to grow" list;!..
>
>Also Cambridge Airport, for example, wasn't there when I was growing
>up. I dare say if I tried I could find lots more, but probably the
>best thing to do would be to find historical maps of 50, 100, and 200
>years ago and compare them to now. You'd soon notice the difference
>then.
Well OK.. its taken that land out of agricultural production but
generates a lot of real jobs, not just being an airport but if you
service and modify aircraft then its a bit awkward being them in by
road;!, and its not for sometime yet to be sold off for housing..
>
>If you take the attitude that you can always purchase more
>agricultural land to build on, then how are you going to feed the
>extra people?
I don't take the view then you can go get more land but if we must we
could re farm some land thats pasture land now well a farmer I know
reckons so .. thats as long as the "Brussels" sprouts the subsidies..
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
from the 60s, only vague I admit, was that it was a small place. ISTR
grass runways, or am I muddling it with somewhere else?
The 'big noise' in the air in that area always used to be Duxford,
whence they filmed some of the 'Battle Of Britain'. One day, a Mess
followed by a Spitfire followed by a camera plane flew low right over
our house. I've looked for that shot every time I've watched the
film, but I reckon it ended on the cutting room floor.
On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:49:51 +0100, charles
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> You must have grown up a very, very long time ago. Marshalls have been
> flying from the site since 1937, although they may not have called it an
> airport.
--
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>I may be mistaken, but it's grown a lot, hasn't it? My recollections
>from the 60s, only vague I admit, was that it was a small place. ISTR
>grass runways, or am I muddling it with somewhere else?
Well for as long as I've lived here and thats since 1960 its been the
same size they build the sort of by-pass round the perimeter some time
ago so It wont grow any further;!..
>
>The 'big noise' in the air in that area always used to be Duxford,
>whence they filmed some of the 'Battle Of Britain'. One day, a Mess
>followed by a Spitfire followed by a camera plane flew low right over
>our house. I've looked for that shot every time I've watched the
>film, but I reckon it ended on the cutting room floor.
Come most weekends and sit outside the John Barleycorn pub and you'll
see much the same thing!./
Sounds excellent:))..
--
Tony Sayer
Jim Lesurf
<to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
> Humm.. Perhaps it doesn't happen that much in Cambridgeshire which is
> prime growing ground. It always amazes me that when flying in a small
> aircraft just how much of the country isn't built on;!...
The question then becomes how many hectares per person is needed to supply
the food, water, air, and other resources they require. With so many people
stacked close together in London and the SE that isn't productive because
it is covered, they then all expect this to be devoted to them somewhere
else. Although this expectation seems to be automatic without actually
thinking about it. Leading to the assumption that we can also build on more
and more green land without any consequences.
Personally the current arrangement of people huddling nervously together
down in the SE of England suits me as it gives more space up here. :-)
Although why so many *employers* are terrified of moving away from the SE
baffles me. I can see that *employees* may as a consequence go to the SE to
find work, but it seems odd that employers and businesses will pay such
costs to do so. Pay more for a poorer quality of life. Baffling.
Particularly for 'office' jobs like the dreaded bankers who could do that
anywhere they can plug in a computer. But again, I'm happy to be x hundred
miles from them... ;->
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
tony sayer
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <GAUyO+BH...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
><to...@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Humm.. Perhaps it doesn't happen that much in Cambridgeshire which is
>> prime growing ground. It always amazes me that when flying in a small
>> aircraft just how much of the country isn't built on;!...
>
>The question then becomes how many hectares per person is needed to supply
>the food, water, air, and other resources they require. With so many people
>stacked close together in London and the SE that isn't productive because
>it is covered, they then all expect this to be devoted to them somewhere
>else. Although this expectation seems to be automatic without actually
>thinking about it. Leading to the assumption that we can also build on more
>and more green land without any consequences.
>
>Personally the current arrangement of people huddling nervously together
>down in the SE of England suits me as it gives more space up here. :-)
>
>Although why so many *employers* are terrified of moving away from the SE
>baffles me. I can see that *employees* may as a consequence go to the SE to
>find work, but it seems odd that employers and businesses will pay such
>costs to do so. Pay more for a poorer quality of life. Baffling.
>
>Particularly for 'office' jobs like the dreaded bankers who could do that
>anywhere they can plug in a computer. But again, I'm happy to be x hundred
>miles from them... ;->
>
Bet U are;!. I think its just ingrained ways of doing things. After all
when they can move their call centres to most any Banana boat in the
Pacific then must be something else..
>Slainte,
>
>Jim
>
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
grazing that pasture?
We should perhaps eat less meat, but are you going stand for election
on that manifesto? It's no concern to me, because I'm almost entirely
vegetarian already, but it's the sort of personal choice that is very
difficult to legislate on!
We could farm the animals more intensively, but that requires more
energy to run the housing and to procure/create the food that
otherwise they would have grazed.
Further most people, although they may not be so moral as to actually
reflect their views and beliefs in their purchases, really don't like
the idea of factory farming. It was working on a farm with an
intensive pig unit, and seeing a Horizon programme about factory
farming, with frightened chicks being picked up and dumped on
elevators, etc, that convinced me to give up buying anything that I
couldn't guarantee was NOT factory farmed.
You can also use existing arable land more intensively, but again that
almost always means a greater input of energy in terms of crop
cultivation, fertliser, sprays, etc.
So just as growing energy crops would reduce the area of edible crops
grown, farming more intensively requires more energy. Both land and
energy are limited resources here in the UK, and solving one problem
is likely to exaggerate the other.
Of course, across the world in general, it may be better to farm more
intensively here than grow the food elsewhere and fly it into the UK,
but you can only know that once you've done the sums. You can't just
say: "Oh! It'll be alright in the end! We can always grow a bit more
food!" It really doesn't work like that.
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:27:53 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> I don't take the view then you can go get more land but if we must we
> could re farm some land thats pasture land now well a farmer I know
> reckons so .. thats as long as the "Brussels" sprouts the subsidies..
--
Steve Thackery
news:hgmn265ts2lop2ogg...@4ax.com...
>>
I repeat, as far as environmental impact is concerned, population
level is *everything*.
<<
I just don't buy that. The US has just 5% of the world's population, yet
produces 25% of the man-made CO2.
The lifestyle of people is just as important as the population level.
SteveT
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>"Java Jive" wrote in message
>news:hgmn265ts2lop2ogg...@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>I repeat, as far as environmental impact is concerned, population
>level is *everything*.
><<
>
>I just don't buy that. The US has just 5% of the world's population, yet
>produces 25% of the man-made CO2.
>
And uses 24% of the world's crude oil production (not including the Gulf
of Mexico leak).
>The lifestyle of people is just as important as the population level.
>
Yes.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
Jim Lesurf
FWIW my impression is that the 'bankers' and 'city types' tend to get on by
simply making themselves 'look good' among their mates/competitors.
Basically by talking and acting the part: e.g. wearing the current
equivalent of red braces whilst waving the newest equivalent of a filofax
and loud name-dropping of their influential pals, etc. Since they need to
run with the 'in group' and 'display' in this way they all have to cluster.
Distance might show how thin their skills and 'achievements' actually
were...
Why other business people also seem to huddle together is more puzzling. I
can see why manufacturers might want to be near suppliers of components or
wholesale warehouses. But since a lot of that is now based in China, etc,
the huddling is a puzzle to me. I wonder if they are just frightened to
leave the SE in case house prices rise and they can't get back if they
panic? If so, the finance-driven distortion persistently hobbling the UK
economy has yet one more sin to answer for if we ever do manage to line
them up against a wall. :-)
Jim Lesurf
> >>
> I repeat, as far as environmental impact is concerned, population level
> is *everything*. <<
> I just don't buy that. The US has just 5% of the world's population,
> yet produces 25% of the man-made CO2.
Does that include the CO2 released in other countries to make goods they
import?
Ivan
"Steve Thackery" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6L6dnT5ebLsAarDR...@bt.com...
The problem is Steve that people have now come to expect those lifestyles as
standard, but how much longer into the future will they be sustainable? and
if they can't continue to be sustained, then look out for massive breakdowns
in 'social cohesion' right across the planet.
Now whilst I'm no great fan of Paddy Ashdown I'm bound to say that I was
quite impressed by a speech he made to an audience on BBC's Question Time a
couple of years ago, I haven't been able to find it on youtube or on the BBC
website, but fortunately I did record it (in not very good quality) and have
now put it up on photo bucket, he's the only politician that I have ever
heard tell it (IMV anyway) as it's really going to be as this century
progresses, instead of trying to convince a gullible populace, who only want
to hear good news, that if we all prepared to make a few financial
sacrifices and suffer a bit of hardship for a couple of years, then
everything is going to be back exactly the way it was before, with boundless
prosperity and economic growth.
<http://s1015.photobucket.com/albums/af277/ivanolder/?action=view¤t=paddy.mp4>
>
>
Java Jive
change lifestyles. You can't change the population level, at least
not for the better, unless you are going to go around arbitrarily
killing people.
So I repeat, population level is everything.
On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:28:34 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> The lifestyle of people is just as important as the population level.
Andy Champ
>
> The question then becomes how many hectares per person is needed to supply
If "other resources" includes energy - renewable energy - then we don't
have enough Earth already. That's counting empty Canada and Russia, as
well as crowded England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint
(and there are many other articles around to corroborate that, for the
Wikipedia haters)
Andy
Ivan
"Andy Champ" <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:k-Odna-yK7Zh3rPR...@eclipse.net.uk...
World is facing a natural resources crisis worse than financial crunch.
. Two planets need by 2030 at this rate, warns report
. Humans using 30% more resources than sustainable
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats>
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
Don't panic! Don't panic! Don't panic!
But:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4193017.ece
From The Times
June 23, 2008
Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
...the global food industry may also have to deal with a potentially
catastrophic future shortage of phosphorus, scientists say.
Researchers in Australia, Europe and the United States have given
warning that the element, which is essential to all living things,
is at the heart of modern farming and has no synthetic alternative,
is being mined, used and wasted as never before
....
Massive inefficiencies in the "farm-to-fork" processing of food and
the soaring appetite for meat and dairy produce across Asia is
stoking demand for phosphorus faster and further than anyone had
predicted. "Peak phosphorus", say scientists, could hit the world in
just 30 years. Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and
usage suck phosphorus out of the agricultural system in
unprecedented volumes, have, researchers in Brazil say, made the
problem many times worse. Already, India is running low on matches
as factories run short of phosphorus; the Brazilian Government has
spoken of a need to nationalise privately held mines that supply the
fertiliser industry and Swedish scientists are busily redesigning
toilets to separate and collect urine in an attempt to conserve the
precious element.
etc. etc. etc.
Few observers hold out hope of a discovery of phosphorus large
enough to meet the continued growth in demand. The ore itself takes
millions of years to form, and the prospect of extracting phosphorus
from the sea bed presents massive technological and financial
challenges.
Ivan
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:ngis265a3d66ehout...@4ax.com...
Well obviously our greasy politicians don't give a FF as long as they're
lining their pockets whilst trying to conjure up short term fixes, looks to
me like we'll just have to rely on Mother Nature to do what needs to be done
when the time comes, the sad thing is that man is the only animal on the
planet with the ability to understand what the problems are and how to solve
them, but for some strange reason it appears that we just don't want to,
inbuilt self destruct mechanism or what?
>
>
Albert Ross
wrote:
>Well I certainly won't be around to be able to say 'I told you so', but my
>own pessimistic view is that we won't be able to sustain our population at
>its present level in the style they have grown accustomed to and come to
>expect over the last 60 years, let alone an additional 10,000,000 extra
>souls on this tiny overcrowded island of ours, at least not without some
>kind of breakdown 'social cohesion' (sic) and a serious reduction in the
>overall quality of life.
Which is of course already happening/has already happened.
Yes I'm relieved I won't have to live much longer.
Albert Ross
wrote:
>Yes, but, although it's very difficult to get people to do it, you can
>change lifestyles. You can't change the population level, at least
>not for the better, unless you are going to go around arbitrarily
>killing people.
They're working on it! See NICE, NHS, the FSA here, USDA, WHO, HMOs
etc. there, plus all the "Health Charities"
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>If you take land out of pasture, then what happens to the animals
>grazing that pasture?
They normally go for slaughter or graze elsewhere;)...
>
>We should perhaps eat less meat, but are you going stand for election
>on that manifesto? It's no concern to me, because I'm almost entirely
>vegetarian already, but it's the sort of personal choice that is very
>difficult to legislate on!
>
>We could farm the animals more intensively, but that requires more
>energy to run the housing and to procure/create the food that
>otherwise they would have grazed.
>
>Further most people, although they may not be so moral as to actually
>reflect their views and beliefs in their purchases, really don't like
>the idea of factory farming. It was working on a farm with an
>intensive pig unit, and seeing a Horizon programme about factory
>farming, with frightened chicks being picked up and dumped on
>elevators, etc, that convinced me to give up buying anything that I
>couldn't guarantee was NOT factory farmed.
But still Joe public buys the stuff ;!..
Even knowing how its produced. Course if he had to kill and gut it that
might change their minds, but I expect only for a while .. my Nan could
covert a live rabbit to a stew in hours...
With her bare hands...
>
>You can also use existing arable land more intensively, but again that
>almost always means a greater input of energy in terms of crop
>cultivation, fertliser, sprays, etc.
>
>So just as growing energy crops would reduce the area of edible crops
>grown, farming more intensively requires more energy. Both land and
>energy are limited resources here in the UK, and solving one problem
>is likely to exaggerate the other.
>
Go nuclear for your energy ..
>Of course, across the world in general, it may be better to farm more
>intensively here than grow the food elsewhere and fly it into the UK,
>but you can only know that once you've done the sums. You can't just
>say: "Oh! It'll be alright in the end! We can always grow a bit more
>food!" It really doesn't work like that.
>
So someone's gotta starve any volunteers?...
Course all those suburban gardens could be put back into use, my Dad fed
us quite well from his back garden in the 50's ...
>On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 09:27:53 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> I don't take the view then you can go get more land but if we must we
>> could re farm some land thats pasture land now well a farmer I know
>> reckons so .. thats as long as the "Brussels" sprouts the subsidies..
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
wrote:
>
I have collected ample evidence to show that increasingly there is
nowhere else.
> But still Joe public buys the stuff ;!..
Yes, like I said. What people say and do are too often two different
things.
> Go nuclear for your energy ..
We've been through that debate before in this ng - we don't have any
source of nuclear fuel in this country, so we'd have no security of
supply.
> So someone's gotta starve any volunteers?...
No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
immigration at all, not a single person. No foreign students. No
migrant labour. No medical help for childless couples. No tax breaks
or social security benefits for children. Free contraception.
> Course all those suburban gardens could be put back into use, my Dad fed
> us quite well from his back garden in the 50's ...
Yes, as WWII proved, if necessary we could do a lot in that direction.
Albert Ross
wrote:
>Course all those suburban gardens could be put back into use, my Dad fed
>us quite well from his back garden in the 50's ...
Dig For Victory!
(I probably still have the booklet around here, somewhere)
We did well off our allotment. I'm currently waiting impatiently for a
neighbour's runner beans to start cropping.
The wheel turns, when I was young we had a hen coop but no hens: some
of the neighbours still had chickens (and bantams).
I heard from our ex-neighbours that the first thing the people who
bought our old house did was build a chicken coop and install
chickens. They're also growing a lot of veggies.
Albert Ross
wrote:
>No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
>That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
>immigration at all, not a single person. No foreign students. No
>migrant labour. No medical help for childless couples. No tax breaks
>or social security benefits for children. Free contraception.
It's being done from the other end, telling people to eat a diet that
guarantees obesity and diabetes in a majority of the population then
failing to treat the results, refusing certain cancer drugs, etc.
Genetic cleansing.
Jim Lesurf
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:05:10 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Go nuclear for your energy ..
> We've been through that debate before in this ng - we don't have any
> source of nuclear fuel in this country, so we'd have no security of
> supply.
Well, in principle it is rather more feasible to stockpile some years
supply of fissionable material (especially including fast breeding) than it
is the same huge amount of coal and oil. The North Sea reserves have now
mainly been used up, I think. Particularly since Thatcher and Blair decided
to use up the gas as quickly as possible for electricity rather that
reserve it for home use over a much longer period.
But beyond that we do have a fair amount of H2O. Could do with more
Lithium, though... :-)
Above said, unless we do get an easy fusion system sometime soon, then I'd
agree that nuclear isn't more than a short term gap-filler which might help
in an emergency period. Alas, all my life fusion has remained "50 years
away" with no sign of coming much nearer.
Java Jive
wrote:
>
> Well, in principle it is rather more feasible to stockpile some years
> supply of fissionable material (especially including fast breeding) than it
> is the same huge amount of coal and oil.
I refer you back to my previous posts on the subject of nuclear energy
and stockpiling the fuel for it. Just to remind you, at the time of
the original thread our total electricity consumption was around
46GW/yr, and our total energy consumption around 300 GW/yr. TNP
suggested replacing the whole country's energy consumption by
electricity brewed from nuclear energy, and I did the following
calculation:
> But we don't have any radio-active fuel, so the only way we could
> guarantee strategic security of supply is to stockpile the WHOLE
> envisaged future demand in advance while we are actually building the
> power stations. Let's do the maths for that ...
> If 100 nuclear power stations were ordered today, and completed 10 a
> year from 10 years hence, it would take 20 years to complete the job.
> If each was expected to last 40 years, the estimated lifetime of
> Sizewell B, that would mean a total fuel demand of 40 * 100 * 7360t =
> 29,440,000t, or 1,472,000t/yr, or 34 times the current world uranium
> production. This means that total current world uranium production
> would have to grow at about 29% compound every single year over the 20
> years of construction to meet both our and the current level of world
> demands.
Now, TNP was sowing confusion there, because in a thread discussing
mainly just electricity generation and consumption (46GW/yr), he
suddenly began discussing all energy consumption (300GW/yr).
Nevertheless, I think the above calculation demonstrates the lack of
realism in the suggestion of stockpiling nuclear fuel.
> The North Sea reserves have now
> mainly been used up, I think. Particularly since Thatcher and Blair decided
> to use up the gas as quickly as possible for electricity rather that
> reserve it for home use over a much longer period.
There's at least another 40 years, it's just a question of
economically and environmentally how bad we want it.
> Above said, unless we do get an easy fusion system sometime soon, then I'd
> agree that nuclear isn't more than a short term gap-filler which might help
> in an emergency period. Alas, all my life fusion has remained "50 years
> away" with no sign of coming much nearer.
I don't suppose anyone contributing to this thread will live to see
it, perhaps noone whoever reads it either.
André Coutanche
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:26:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> Well, in principle it is rather more feasible to stockpile some years
>> supply of fissionable material (especially including fast breeding) than
>> it is the same huge amount of coal and oil.
>
> I refer you back to my previous posts on the subject of nuclear energy
> and stockpiling the fuel for it. Just to remind you, at the time of
> the original thread our total electricity consumption was around
> 46GW/yr, and our total energy consumption around 300 GW/yr.
<snip>
I couldn't agree more with quantifying things as the basis of a sensible
debate - but your figures don't work as you have quoted them. GW is a
measure of *power* - the instantaneous electricity demand at a given moment.
*Energy* consumption is measured in GW*h*. So the U.K. consumes X (whatever
the figure is) GWh of electricity per year, not X GW.
46GW sounds like a figure for the maximum demand on the grid (possibly in
England & Wales, possibly in Great Britain). Total electricity energy
supplied in a year will be the average annual demand in GW multiplied by
8760 (hours in a year) - perhaps something in the order of 300 TWh.
André Coutanche
Jim Lesurf
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:26:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> There's at least another 40 years, it's just a question of economically
> and environmentally how bad we want it.
Saying "at least another 40 years" doesn't mean much unless you specify the
amount we choose to use, how easy it becomes to access, etc. Plus the large
questions you include in your statement.
> > Above said, unless we do get an easy fusion system sometime soon, then
> > I'd agree that nuclear isn't more than a short term gap-filler which
> > might help in an emergency period. Alas, all my life fusion has
> > remained "50 years away" with no sign of coming much nearer.
> I don't suppose anyone contributing to this thread will live to see it,
> perhaps noone whoever reads it either.
Hard to tell. I'm not particularly optimistic about it as I've seen too
many delays.
In principle *if* we as economies put more effort into cracking the
problems it might become a useful source in less than 20 years. But that
does use words like "might" and "effort". So far as I can see, the last 50
years have gone by with the scientists being more interested in studying
the topic of plasma physics, and the poliliticians simply feeding it enough
money to it kick along the floor. In essence countries contribute to it on
the basis of 'having a finger in the pie' just in case.
The potential is huge since if we can crack H-H fusion for practical use
then the amount of fuel is so close to being infinite in practical terms as
to boggle the mind. But H-H is hard (so far as we know as yet) compared to
H-D, etc, which demand more costly fuels.
Of course, one of the less-studied methods may come to help. Great if so.
But I am not happy to leave this to hoping the 7th calavry will come riding
over the hill to save us any time soon! Would be nice if the string-theory
guys or those in relativity can find us easy access to zero-point energy or
something. But at present that is just 'Star Trek and Stargate' stuff.
Maybe one day, probably too late.
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 22:05:10 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> They normally go for slaughter or graze elsewhere;)...
>
>I have collected ample evidence to show that increasingly there is
>nowhere else.
Well thats what my farming friend tells me, but the UK isn't that big a
meat producer..
>
>> But still Joe public buys the stuff ;!..
>
>Yes, like I said. What people say and do are too often two different
>things.
>
>> Go nuclear for your energy ..
>
>We've been through that debate before in this ng - we don't have any
>source of nuclear fuel in this country, so we'd have no security of
>supply.
Have we?. OK so what are we going to do and the answer isn't bloody
windmills..
>
>> So someone's gotta starve any volunteers?...
>
>No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
>That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
>immigration at all, not a single person.
OK well the NHS and most service industries like Taxis will grind to a
halt as the native British don't like doing certain jobs..
> No foreign students.
Well thats a good "export" earner and will put a lot of people employed
in education out of a job..
> No
>migrant labour.
As above the Brits will have to get off their arses and rise to the
challenge of working and doing jobs they don't like..
>No medical help for childless couples.
Well perhaps you might relent on that if your part of a childless couple
and there are plenty around of a lesser age then when career ladies want
to start after 40 odd...
> No tax breaks
>or social security benefits for children.
Of course;!..
> Free contraception.
Compulsory after all Mr Hitler had that one on the go with those quietly
sereptiously administered doses of radiation..
>
>> Course all those suburban gardens could be put back into use, my Dad fed
>> us quite well from his back garden in the 50's ...
>
>Yes, as WWII proved, if necessary we could do a lot in that direction.
If we have to then we will.
Course World wars are quite good at population reduction as well,
perhaps thats what we need another MK1 WW1 war;!.....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<acout...@googlemail.com> scribeth thus
Its all here work it out for real;)..
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:41:38 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Saying "at least another 40 years" doesn't mean much unless you specify the
> amount we choose to use, how easy it becomes to access, etc. Plus the large
> questions you include in your statement.
Java Jive
wrote:
> In article <89bv0p...@mid.individual.net>, Andr� Coutanche
> <acout...@googlemail.com> scribeth thus
> >"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote
> >> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:26:17 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well, in principle it is rather more feasible to stockpile some years
> >>> supply of fissionable material (especially including fast breeding) than
> >>> it is the same huge amount of coal and oil.
> >>
> >> I refer you back to my previous posts on the subject of nuclear energy
> >> and stockpiling the fuel for it. Just to remind you, at the time of
> >> the original thread our total electricity consumption was around
> >> 46GW/yr, and our total energy consumption around 300 GW/yr.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >I couldn't agree more with quantifying things as the basis of a sensible
> >debate - but your figures don't work as you have quoted them. GW is a
> >measure of *power* - the instantaneous electricity demand at a given moment.
> >*Energy* consumption is measured in GW*h*. So the U.K. consumes X (whatever
> >the figure is) GWh of electricity per year, not X GW.
Sorry, you're quite correct of course, I transcribed the units of the
figures from my previous posts mistakenly - the figures are 46GW
average electricity consumption and 300GW for TNP's total energy
consumption. My error arose from the fact that the electricity
consumption was originally quoted as a kWh per year:
"Last year Britain consumed about 400,000 GWh of electricity, which,
dividing by 24 * 365 is just under 46 GWyr."
> Its all here work it out for real;)..
>
> http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/
Interesting link.
Java Jive
wrote:
>
> windmills..
I've anwered that before as well:
"I'll tell you what makes sense - the ONLY thing that makes sense.
Just as each one of us has to learn to live within our income, so each
nation must learn to live within its energy income. In our particular
case, because we have lived too long beyond our means, the inevitable
consequence is at least some retrenchment. Any policy that pretends
to avoid this by waiving a magic wand, whether it be called wind,
wave, nuclear, or whatever the latest craze happens to be, is, given
the serious of the situation, fraudulent and fundamentally, morally
dishonest."
> >No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
> >That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
> >immigration at all, not a single person.
>
> OK well the NHS and most service industries like Taxis will grind to a
> halt as the native British don't like doing certain jobs..
Unemployed people will do them if they're hungry enough, employed
people will do them if they're paid enough.
> > No foreign students.
>
> Well thats a good "export" earner and will put a lot of people employed
> in education out of a job..
We'll have to educate British people better instead.
> > No
> >migrant labour.
>
> As above the Brits will have to get off their arses and rise to the
> challenge of working and doing jobs they don't like..
Exactly.
> >No medical help for childless couples.
>
> Well perhaps you might relent on that if your part of a childless couple
> and there are plenty around of a lesser age then when career ladies want
> to start after 40 odd...
No, as it has turned out, I have no children of my own, and it hurts,
but I've had to accept it. We can't always have everything we want in
life.
One other possible measure that I didn't mention was a limit on family
size of 2, but it's difficult to know how to enforce it in a
democratically acceptable way.
> Course World wars are quite good at population reduction as well,
> perhaps thats what we need another MK1 WW1 war;!.....
But, seeing as one of the biggest problems is not being able to use
certain types of energy as freely as we'd like to use them because
they contribute to global warming, wars are not an ideal solution to
the population problem practically (not to mention politically),
because all wars burn fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow!
Jim Lesurf
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> At current levels of consumption, AFAIAA.
Still doesn't tell me what presumptions it makes about what portion of the
physically existing material is taken into account. All that exists? All
that is estimated? All that has been found and identified as a resource?
All that is 'cheap enough to extract' according to 'some' criterion? Or
what? What assumptions about cost, etc?
Exploration means we continue to find fields, seams, reserves, etc, we
didn't previously know were there, and to keep changing figures for what
might be available. And as extraction methods develop what was once ignored
may come to be easily obtainable.
In physical resources you can get wildly varying values depending on the
assumptions you make, what evidence you include, and the extent to which
new 'reserves' are found or become 'economic' or 'feasible', etc, etc.
Without knowing the details, saying "40 years at current consumption"
doesn't really tell us anything.... even ignoring how reality may depart
from "current levels of consumption".
By ignoring all these details politicians and campaigners can pretty well
dial up any 'answers' they like - often producing out of a hat values that
wildly disagree. Fine for winning political debates, but not very helpful
for the rest of us who just get these assertions thrown at us as 'facts'.
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 18:41:38 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > Saying "at least another 40 years" doesn't mean much unless you
> > specify the amount we choose to use, how easy it becomes to access,
> > etc. Plus the large questions you include in your statement.
Slainte,
Jim Lesurf
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 10:42:14 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Have we?. OK so what are we going to do and the answer isn't bloody
> > windmills..
> I've anwered that before as well:
> "I'll tell you what makes sense - the ONLY thing that makes sense.
That does come across as someone preparing to dictate their opinions on the
basis that eveyone has to accept them as 'fact'. :-)
> Just as each one of us has to learn to live within our income, so each
> nation must learn to live within its energy income. In our particular
> case, because we have lived too long beyond our means, the inevitable
> consequence is at least some retrenchment. Any policy that pretends to
> avoid this by waiving a magic wand, whether it be called wind, wave,
> nuclear, or whatever the latest craze happens to be, is, given the
> serious of the situation, fraudulent and fundamentally, morally
> dishonest."
The problem is with the way you preload that with "any policy that
pretends to..." Some of those 'policies' may well contribute to the power
and energy we could have available. So simply tarring them all in such a
sweeping manner evades the reality. Similarly your assertions are riddled
with unspoken assumptions and beliefs which may be incorrect in detail and
in practice. Oh well, at least you didn't call your "ONLY thing" by the
title 'Final Solution'. 8-] Nice excercise in debating semantics, though.
:-)
> > >No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
> > >That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
> > >immigration at all, not a single person.
> >
> > OK well the NHS and most service industries like Taxis will grind to a
> > halt as the native British don't like doing certain jobs..
> Unemployed people will do them if they're hungry enough, employed people
> will do them if they're paid enough.
Ah, yes. Things went wrong when we stopped making children go up chimneys,
eh?... Is your point that to avoid some people starving we have to make
some people starve? Certainly reads like it. :-)
The advantage to the slave of being a slave is that he may be worth
something to the owner who paid to buy him. So letting him starve to the
point of being unable to work or die represents a loss. Unemployed
'workers' <sic> can be left to starve when not required and as a lesson to
the rest not to get uppity... :-)
> > > No foreign students.
> >
> > Well thats a good "export" earner and will put a lot of people
> > employed in education out of a job..
> We'll have to educate British people better instead.
Nice use of "better". :-)
However the reality is that:
A) Those who come here from abroad pay more than home students and
essentially do so in foreign currency. So you'd need our 'own' people to do
that or a direct equivalent.
B) Some of those who then go abroad again have a predisposition to buy from
us having found out what we are like, etc.
C) Some of the more well-skilled ones stay here and boost our own economy.
Of course we could educate our "British" people "better" *as well* as
getting income from educating "foreign students". No need for "instead".
A ban on *all* immigration would also impede the exchanges of scientists,
engineers, etc. We might then have a 'brain drain' whilst not allowing
others to come in. Or are you planning to chain UK people to their desks as
well for fear they might take their skills elsewhere?
I wonder if you have any idea just how many of the 'UK' scientists and
engineers who do R&D here came from outside the UK. And just how many of
them do good work that benefits our economy. I suspect the same is so in
various other fields.
> > > No migrant labour.
> >
> > As above the Brits will have to get off their arses and rise to the
> > challenge of working and doing jobs they don't like..
> Exactly.
You plan to force them? I'm not sure when you intend to take over 'Britain'
and impose all these plans you have. Are that nice Dave and Nick your glove
puppets? ;->
I think I now can see why some people rant about the 'green gestapo' being
a load of dangerous loonies intent on ordering the rest of us about.. At
least you've given them some fuel for their fire... :-)
Ivan
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5132215...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <4on336pt5obp6vr5r...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 10:42:14 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > Have we?. OK so what are we going to do and the answer isn't bloody
>> > windmills..
>
>
> engineers, etc. We might then have a 'brain drain' whilst not allowing
> others to come in. Or are you planning to chain UK people to their desks
> as
> well for fear they might take their skills elsewhere?
>
> I wonder if you have any idea just how many of the 'UK' scientists and
> engineers who do R&D here came from outside the UK. And just how many of
> them do good work that benefits our economy. I suspect the same is so in
> various other fields.
>
>
This was my reply to someone who made a similar point about the necessity
for immigration, on another newsgroup.
'Of course immigrants don't become old and sick, unemployed, require
housing, benefits, and place huge burdens on the infrastructure of an
already small overcrowded island, and what do we do then, import 10,000,000
more?. It's like one giant Ponzi scheme, destined to end in tears for
everyone concerned'.
However, If they 'are' essential to the wellbeing of this country, then in
the majority of cases we could and should (just as many other countries do)
make a much greater use of work permits, if there is a slump and work
becomes unavailable, or for whatever reason they are no longer useful to us,
then I'm sorry they'll have to be on the earliest convenient flight home.
I believe that many Brits are perfectly prepared to work abroad under such
conditions, in which case it can hardly be seen as being racist, or in
inhuman.
After all, I don't expect to call out a plumber with the intention of paying
him the going rate, only to find him and his whole extended family arriving
at the front door with the expectation of moving in with me!
<http://s1015.photobucket.com/albums/af277/ivanolder/?action=view¤t=paddy.mp4>
>
>
>
Jim Lesurf
<ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah. Familiar 4th form school debating-society tactics. cf below. :-)
> However, If they 'are' essential
You just asserted the "essential" and used an 'if' as a hook to hang the
rest of what you wrote upon. But in reality the 'if' may not universally
return TRUE and the word 'essential' may not have to be applied to the
entire group 'foreign' or 'immigrant'. Reality may not conform to the
cartoon you draw.
A group of people can on the whole be valuable or useful or worthwhile, or
a subset can be. Some individuals may be very useful, others not. Depends
entirely on details, circumstances, individuals, etc.
Of course, being able to make sense and use of that does require some
intelligence and thought. Not a blanket set of assertions about 'all of
them' or 'immigrants'. :-)
So turning this into either "essential" for the entire class, or rejecting
them all as a class are both employing the 'excluded middle' debating ploy
and removing all the relevant details which a rational consideration would
have to take into account. Replacing this with treating them all as if they
were 'all the same'. Politicians and axe-grinders do like doing this as it
lets them paint a cartoon view of reality and apply their own simplified
arguments. ignoring the complications of the real world in the process,
and hoping others won't notice. :-)
Java Jive
wrote:
>
> pretends to..." Some of those 'policies' may well contribute to the power
> and energy we could have available.
And that's fine, I'm talking about people who say that "The only way
to save the planet is to use " wind, or nuclear, or whatever their
hobby-horse technology happens to be. For example, this newsgroup
seems to have a number of contributors who think that nuclear is the
only solution, but it's not. Our country has a great deal of hot air,
quite a lot of wind, quite a lot waves, quite a lot of rainfall, even
some sun, and still about 40 years of oil and gas at current
consumption that is extractable with current or immediately forseeable
technology in the North Sea and off our Atlantic seaboard, but
absolutely NO native source of fissile material. Our existing nuclear
facilities will probably be needed as part of an interim solution, but
a quick 'fix' for all our problems, they most certainly are not.
> So simply tarring them all in such a
> sweeping manner evades the reality. Similarly your assertions are riddled
> with unspoken assumptions and beliefs which may be incorrect in detail and
> in practice. Oh well, at least you didn't call your "ONLY thing" by the
> title 'Final Solution'. 8-] Nice excercise in debating semantics, though.
> :-)
No 'debating semantics' were being employed, just what I see as
'common sense'. We have to live within our means, and we haven't been
doing so for quite some time, so it's going be tough learning to do
so. I certainly won't enjoy it any more than anyone else, the
difference between myself and others is that I accept the necessity.
> > > >No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
> > > >That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
> > > >immigration at all, not a single person.
> > >
> > > OK well the NHS and most service industries like Taxis will grind to a
> > > halt as the native British don't like doing certain jobs..
>
> > Unemployed people will do them if they're hungry enough, employed people
> > will do them if they're paid enough.
>
> Ah, yes. Things went wrong when we stopped making children go up chimneys,
> eh?... Is your point that to avoid some people starving we have to make
> some people starve? Certainly reads like it. :-)
'Debating semantics', by any chance? Who mentioned pushing little
children up chimneys, I certainly never did, and never would.
> However the reality is that:
>
> A) Those who come here from abroad pay more than home students and
> essentially do so in foreign currency. So you'd need our 'own' people to do
> that or a direct equivalent.
But I doubt that they truly pay the full cost to the country of
educating them, and even if they did, in the long term we'd be better
off educating British people instead.
> B) Some of those who then go abroad again have a predisposition to buy from
> us having found out what we are like, etc.
Some may. On the other hand, some may join terrorist organisations!
> C) Some of the more well-skilled ones stay here and boost our own economy.
But in the long term is it really a 'boost' to our economy that their
children then acquire British Nationality and we have to shift over
and make room for them, and our own children have to compete with
theirs? It's just another form of immigration.
> Of course we could educate our "British" people "better" *as well* as
> getting income from educating "foreign students". No need for "instead".
Not when the number of university places is limited. Every place that
goes to a foreign student is one that didn't go to someone born here.
> A ban on *all* immigration would also impede the exchanges of scientists,
> engineers, etc. We might then have a 'brain drain' whilst not allowing
> others to come in. Or are you planning to chain UK people to their desks as
> well for fear they might take their skills elsewhere?
The 'brain drain' has been happening anyway. I wonder why people
don't want to stay here? Could overcrowding, unemployment, and
social problems have anything to do with it?
> I wonder if you have any idea just how many of the 'UK' scientists and
> engineers who do R&D here came from outside the UK. And just how many of
> them do good work that benefits our economy. I suspect the same is so in
> various other fields.
But again, how much of the 'good work that benefits our economy' could
equally have been done just as well by British people?
> > > > No migrant labour.
> > >
> > > As above the Brits will have to get off their arses and rise to the
> > > challenge of working and doing jobs they don't like..
>
> > Exactly.
>
> You plan to force them? I'm not sure when you intend to take over 'Britain'
> and impose all these plans you have. Are that nice Dave and Nick your glove
> puppets? ;->
They'll do the jobs if they are hungry enough.
> I think I now can see why some people rant about the 'green gestapo' being
> a load of dangerous loonies intent on ordering the rest of us about.. At
> least you've given them some fuel for their fire... :-)
And isn't that just the classic human failing, you don't like the
message, so you blame the messenger! You and others that you claim
to quote mention Hitler, Gestapo, and such stuff, I have never
mentioned anything like that!
Population has been a problem throughout human history, and the
'fixes' have almost without exception been unpleasant in the extreme,
usually accompanied by wanton, extreme violence. I assume that no
green basher actually wants to see surplus babies thrown down the
drains as happened in Roman times, or a repeat of the Highland
clearances, or ethnic cleansing Balkans or Sudanese style?
You or they can rant on about 'green gestapo' all you or they like,
it's not going to alter these basic facts: space and resources are
limited, while population growth is potentially not. Space in the UK
is particularly limited, and energy supply is not much better.
Therefore, at some point or other we are going to have prevent
population growth, if not now, then in the future. The sooner we
hoist that on board, and act on it, the less unpleasant the medicine
will be, but the longer we continue to delude ourselves that it's not
a problem, the more unpleasant the eventual cure will have to be.
If we choose to do something about it now, in a democratic manner,
then maybe we can avoid the worst of the measures I have outlined as
being possible. If we continue to bury our heads in the sand and hope
that the nasty problem of population growth will do us a miraculous
favour and simply go away, then who knows what will happen if things
get bad enough? If there is a complete break down in law and order,
etc, then, looking at history, the worst can happen, and probably
will, yeah even unto Hitler and Gestapo style scenarios which green
bashers are so fond of invoking. Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?
Java Jive
documentary about North Sea Oil, refers to current levels of
consumption and extraction using current or immediately forseeable
technology - no technological pipedreams would be involved. In
principle, we could start to exploit the reserves straightaway, but at
the moment it's simply cheaper to buy it from elsewhere, such as
Russia.
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:43:54 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <9le3365mcv9gunaqm...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> > At current levels of consumption, AFAIAA.
>
> Still doesn't tell me what presumptions it makes about what portion of the
> physically existing material is taken into account.
J G Miller
> 'Of course immigrants don't become old and sick, unemployed, require
> housing, benefits, and place huge burdens on the infrastructure of an
> already small overcrowded island
Is the name Ivan indicative of a good non-immigrant lineage?
charles
> Not when the number of university places is limited. Every place that
> goes to a foreign student is one that didn't go to someone born here.
that's not new. My wife (she wasn't at that time) lost out her possible
place at a particular University when 8 out of the 14 places on her course
went to overseas students - that was 1962!
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Jim Lesurf
> > Not when the number of university places is limited. Every place that
> > goes to a foreign student is one that didn't go to someone born here.
>
> that's not new.
And it is another assertion that doesn't always return TRUE. :-)
University places for UK candidates tend to be limited by the money
provided by the State for that purpose. Overseas (non EU) students can then
be accepted as extra bodies who pay *more* than the marginal cost of their
place. Hence it is quite possible to find that some courses can then accept
*more* Uk candidates because they are being subsidised by the income from
overseas students. This certainly happens at my Uni, and I know it happens
elsewhere.
So you may well find that UK places would *fall* if Unis were stopped from
taking in overseas students.
And if you ban all immigrants you then lose access to the ability to take
in the best possible teachers and researchers you can find from around the
world. Often with them coming in as research students first. So it would
have a negative impact on the level and quality of the education.
> My wife (she wasn't at that time) lost out her possible place at a
> particular University when 8 out of the 14 places on her course went to
> overseas students - that was 1962!
The situation was rather different then in terms of the economics of
Universities. They only catered for a relatively tiny fraction of the
cohort, and their income per student from the goverment was (in real terms)
much higher than now. In essence, back then they were expected to be
'elite' and keep down numbers. This did begin to change during the 1960s,
but only really changed slowly over the following three decades!
These days some *departments* (not just courses) rely on being able to get
income from overseas students to give them the ability to teach the work to
any UK students. Without that the Uni would not be able to afford to run
them at all. Indeed, a number of departments have closed during the last
decade or so. Particularly in sciences and engineering which are much more
costly to run than arts or humanities.
In all the above the details varied (and varies) from one case to another.
So depends entirely on the course, uni, year, etc, etc.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>In article <513243bb...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
I'd just like to confirm the correctness of the general picture Jim has
drawn. I worked in a university from the early 1970s until I retired tne
years ago. I was not an academic but worked in computing services
provision and saw what went on in regard to students.
One year, long ago, our neigbouring university recuited more students
than the government permitted. The result was that that university was
fined and the money was offered to my university provided we could spend
it within about four weeks. My department was able to oblige. We already
had advance spending plans approved by the relevant university committee
(a Three-Year Plan). All it needed was a single short conversation with
the chairman to get official approval to spend the money.
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 10:42:14 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> Have we?. OK so what are we going to do and the answer isn't bloody
>> windmills..
>
>I've anwered that before as well:
>
>"I'll tell you what makes sense - the ONLY thing that makes sense.
>Just as each one of us has to learn to live within our income, so each
>nation must learn to live within its energy income. In our particular
>case, because we have lived too long beyond our means, the inevitable
>consequence is at least some retrenchment. Any policy that pretends
>to avoid this by waiving a magic wand, whether it be called wind,
>wave, nuclear, or whatever the latest craze happens to be, is, given
>the serious of the situation, fraudulent and fundamentally, morally
>dishonest."
Ever read this?...
>
>> >No, we've got to control our population, by legislation if need be.
>> >That might mean some very unpopular legislation, for example: No
>> >immigration at all, not a single person.
>>
>> OK well the NHS and most service industries like Taxis will grind to a
>> halt as the native British don't like doing certain jobs..
>
>Unemployed people will do them if they're hungry enough, employed
>people will do them if they're paid enough.
Let them starve eh;)...
>
>> > No foreign students.
>>
>> Well thats a good "export" earner and will put a lot of people employed
>> in education out of a job..
>
>We'll have to educate British people better instead.
Sorry JJ shows just how much you don't know about the subject, these are
mainly private schools who provide these services and thats income from
abroad, and usually from Asia which is rather rare!..
And all the support services that go with it..
>
>> > No
>> >migrant labour.
>>
>> As above the Brits will have to get off their arses and rise to the
>> challenge of working and doing jobs they don't like..
>
>Exactly.
>
>> >No medical help for childless couples.
>>
>> Well perhaps you might relent on that if your part of a childless couple
>> and there are plenty around of a lesser age then when career ladies want
>> to start after 40 odd...
>
>No, as it has turned out, I have no children of my own, and it hurts,
>but I've had to accept it. We can't always have everything we want in
>life.
But if we can have children of our own, are you or would you deny them
that chance?..
>
>One other possible measure that I didn't mention was a limit on family
>size of 2, but it's difficult to know how to enforce it in a
>democratically acceptable way.
China!!..
As long as your not a girl..
>
>> Course World wars are quite good at population reduction as well,
>> perhaps thats what we need another MK1 WW1 war;!.....
>
>But, seeing as one of the biggest problems is not being able to use
>certain types of energy as freely as we'd like to use them because
>they contribute to global warming, wars are not an ideal solution to
>the population problem practically (not to mention politically),
>because all wars burn fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow!
Dunno lets 'ave a nuclear one;?..
--
Tony Sayer
Java Jive
described, or question it as fact in any way, but what you both fail
to realise is that largely it is a result of government policy, which
can and should be changed. Therefore none of the points that you have
made really answer those made by myself, which in summary were that
effectively it becomes just another form of immigration into an
already overcrowded island.
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:47:05 +0100, Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> I'd just like to confirm the correctness of the general picture Jim has
> drawn. I worked in a university from the early 1970s until I retired tne
> years ago. I was not an academic but worked in computing services
> provision and saw what went on in regard to students.
Java Jive
wrote:
>
What a short memory you must have! I refer you to similar threads of
a few months ago.
> Sorry JJ shows just how much you don't know about the subject, these are
> mainly private schools who provide these services and thats income from
> abroad, and usually from Asia which is rather rare!..
>
> And all the support services that go with it..
But what happens to the students once they've left school? Do they
*all* go back home, or will a sizeable fraction try to stay here and
compete with the native born population for jobs, housing, etc?
> But if we can have children of our own, are you or would you deny them
> that chance?..
I simply wouldn't give infertile couples any medical help at the
nation's expense.
> >One other possible measure that I didn't mention was a limit on family
> >size of 2, but it's difficult to know how to enforce it in a
> >democratically acceptable way.
>
> China!!..
That seems to be the shining example of how NOT to do it, and it
doesn't seem to have worked too well anyway!
But that bridge may still have to be crossed sometime ...
tony sayer
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
>On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:21:59 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> Ever read this?...
>>
>> http://www.withouthotair.com/
>
>What a short memory you must have! I refer you to similar threads of
>a few months ago.
>
There're might well be a good reason why I didn't see that;!...
>> Sorry JJ shows just how much you don't know about the subject, these are
>> mainly private schools who provide these services and thats income from
>> abroad, and usually from Asia which is rather rare!..
>>
>> And all the support services that go with it..
>
>But what happens to the students once they've left school? Do they
>*all* go back home,
Yes .. most all are from China and Taiwan and that area, very few from
Africa or India..
>or will a sizeable fraction try to stay here and
>compete with the native born population for jobs, housing, etc?
No, 'tho there are a lot of foreign students and academics at the
university that come and go.. As they do, I rather suspect, in all
Uni's..
>
>> But if we can have children of our own, are you or would you deny them
>> that chance?..
>
>I simply wouldn't give infertile couples any medical help at the
>nation's expense.
Prolly just as well its not up to you!, would you refuse treatment to
smokers for instance?..
>
>> >One other possible measure that I didn't mention was a limit on family
>> >size of 2, but it's difficult to know how to enforce it in a
>> >democratically acceptable way.
>>
>> China!!..
>
>That seems to be the shining example of how NOT to do it, and it
>doesn't seem to have worked too well anyway!
>
>But that bridge may still have to be crossed sometime ...
It doesn't seem to be that high on the guvvermints list. What's prolly
more of a problem is an ageing non productive population;!...
--
Tony Sayer
Jim Lesurf
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> I am not trying to deny the situation that you and Jim have both
> described, or question it as fact in any way, but what you both fail to
> realise is that largely it is a result of government policy, which can
> and should be changed. Therefore none of the points that you have made
> really answer those made by myself, which in summary were that
> effectively it becomes just another form of immigration into an already
> overcrowded island.
Which sidesteps the vital point that your proposed 'solution' was "stop all
immigration", when in reality we may well be better off making various
other changes and *not* "stop all immigration" since immigration can be
used to our advantage if employed correctly. We have to think our way
forwards, not just adopt simplistic 'solutions' like 'stop immigration'.
I can't speak for other sectors of the UK economy, But stopping all
incomers to higher education would have a very serious effect. We'd either
have to significantly reduce higher education for UK students or pay more
for what we now get. We'd also lose a number of the best teachers and
researchers.
Linking this to another thread: Curious isn't it that the Tories think that
the nation being 'in debt' is terrible, but somehow fine - and even noble -
for students (and house buyers) to run up very large debts that can take
then decades to repay?
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:47:05 +0100, Peter Duncanson
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'd just like to confirm the correctness of the general picture Jim
> > has drawn. I worked in a university from the early 1970s until I
> > retired tne years ago. I was not an academic but worked in computing
> > services provision and saw what went on in regard to students.
Slainte,
Java Jive
wrote:
>
> immigration", when in reality we may well be better off making various
> other changes and *not* "stop all immigration" since immigration can be
> used to our advantage if employed correctly. We have to think our way
> forwards, not just adopt simplistic 'solutions' like 'stop immigration'.
But the advantages you claim are all short-term, in the long-term we
lose because the result is more people in the country competing for
food, housing, jobs, schooling, and recreational space.
> Linking this to another thread: Curious isn't it that the Tories think that
> the nation being 'in debt' is terrible, but somehow fine - and even noble -
> for students (and house buyers) to run up very large debts that can take
> then decades to repay?
They always take that view, because their supporters aren't usually
the ones who have to tighten their belts. It's the classic "someone
else's problem".
Java Jive
wrote:
> In article <v44636tg46o6fepj0...@4ax.com>, Java Jive
> <ja...@evij.com.invalid> scribeth thus
> >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:21:59 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> But if we can have children of our own, are you or would you deny them
> >> that chance?..
> >
> >I simply wouldn't give infertile couples any medical help at the
> >nation's expense.
>
> Prolly just as well its not up to you!, would you refuse treatment to
> smokers for instance?..
Well, now you mention it! Why not make the tax on cigarettes cover
the cost of their treatment, if it doesn't already (I haven't looked
at the figures for a while, but IIRC correctly it actually does and
more - leaving the government in the invidious position of it being
financially good for the government the more smokers there are)
> It doesn't seem to be that high on the guvvermints list.
No, nobody wants to discuss the elephant in the room.
> What's prolly
> more of a problem is an ageing non productive population;!...
No, I'm one of those, and despite illness I would be happy to work as
long as I am reasonably able. The real problem is not an aging
population but ageism.
charles
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> Well, now you mention it! Why not make the tax on cigarettes cover the
> cost of their treatment, if it doesn't already (I haven't looked at the
> figures for a while, but IIRC correctly it actually does and more -
> leaving the government in the invidious position of it being financially
> good for the government the more smokers there are)
This is rather like the admission - quite recently - that phased traffic
lights, like those at that used to be at Slough on the A4, had been banned
by the DoT since they minimised fuel consumption and thus cut down the
revenue received by the exchequer.