Re: Now can we remove an entire useless third of our population?
Who decides which third that is?
1289 posts • joined 28 Jun 2011
Who decides which third that is?
I remember the days of 6 transistor, 7 transistor, and yea, even 8 transistor radios.
One of them being a RF demodulation diode, and another simply soldered to the board, but left unconnected to the circuitry.
Of course enlightened self interest is some form of social conscience.
The problem is when you set in motion a system that practices mushroom management from the cradle to the grave, you don't get good people at the top.
Not until democracy - universal equivalent suffrage - is destroyed, anyway.
Er no. Actually they don't they aren't and they don't.
Not modern ones.
Broadly speaking,. yes.
NOx is rare in the atmosphere because its highly reactive, and having it in the air is something we are not adapted to.
CO2 exists in small quantities because its not very reactive. Oxygen is reactive, but its always being produced.
Greenpeace is led by very cynical men and funded by even more cynical interests.
Don't confuse te real hippies - like Patrick Moore who founded it - with the career environmentalists who are taking the corporate coin to lobby for overpriced monopoly supply of energy.
The Left infiltrated eco politics years ago, and were bought out post 1990 by serious corporate interest.
Eco politics is as corrupt as any other form.
Well yes they do, but the catalytic converters fitted to cars are not designed to pull nitrogen oxides out. They are deigned to pull out CO and hydrocarbons
I dont even understand that since the earth is fundamentally constructed of nuclear waste anyway.
No. Not directly. Diesels are ultra lean burn high temperature high compressions engines and this is what makes them a bit harmful with respect to nitride production.
On petrol engines lean burn is generally sacrificed for this reason, leaving the catalyst to soak up any spare carbon compounds in the exhaust.
Fuel efficiency sadly seems to go with high NOx production.
Maybe feeding pure oxygen into the engine would helpp ;-)
The statement appears to be a complete straw man.
It is irrelevant who does the testing, as long as the software knows its being tested.
My knowledge is far from exhaustive (sic!) but on diesel, you maintain a constant air input and modulate the fuel, if its non turbo, and a bit more complex but similar if its blown.
What that means is that the cruise and low power mixture becomes extraordinarily weak. Rather than the full throttle mix rather rich (although that too is a feature of older non turbo diesels that smoke under hard acceleration).
The problems AIUI is that ultra lean burn is desperately good for fuel efficiency and particulate emissions as everything gets burnt, but desperately bad for NOx emissions as even the nitrogen gets 'burnt' ...And there is no currently deployable technological quick fix way out of that. Up the fuel ratio to 'cool' the burn and richen it and you will see more smoke and unburnt fuel.
I am wondering what the implications would be of 11 million cars that can never meet the US emissions regulations.
I don't have a smart phone, tablet, don't use a public cloud, tweet on twitter, or have a facebook or Linkedin presence.
And use a relative bare Linux on my desktops.
Indeed If diameter increases at a linear rate volume increase as the cube law of that.
Well yes, these cars certainly are not green yet.
But innovation tends to come in at the top end, and trickle down to the average joes as it stabilises and mass production kicks in.
What these cars are are development testbeds for hybrid, electric, battery, charge technology, regen braking etc etc.
Selling them to greenwashers at inflated prices is just the marketing.
And in any case, there is definite evidence the excess CO2 is greening the planet a bit, so actually the gas guzzling V8 is probably greener anyway. ;-)
No. dB is also a unit of acoustic energy.
Nah, that doesn't stack up either., A modern jet cruising at 20k feet plus is silent on the ground. A train is not.
Its only takeoff power that is the problem near the airport.
Best acoustic horns are about 110dB at one meter per watt input.
So 100W can produce 130dB at a meter,
In practice most loudspeakers aren't that good, but a good 5KW PA can easily squish out 120-130dB at reasonable range.
And a good overdriven Marshall 100W is up at that level within a couple of meters.
Nah. In fact the world, complete with its 'history' and special 'false memories' is being continuously created!
No. This is the period of minimum ice extent every year.
A lot of minions in big companies take the view that doing nothing doesn;t get you fired half as quick as doing the wrong thing.
Nobody likes wage slaves with initiative.
Or it may be that this is a patch over part of a fundamental flaw that means they have to rewrite half the IP stack or summat, and they dont want to admit that yet.
If we need it badly enough we can always make it from nuclear power water and carbon dioxide, like what plants do...
Odd, because although Anthony watts has hosted many articles on the subject, none are by him that I can see, and most confirm that it is a valid problem
So I'd be very interested in a link to the article that you mention.
If it exists at all.
Apparently glaciers advance and retreat in multidecadal timescales and always have done.
Many retreating glaciers reveal a landscape covered in old tree stumps and human artefacts.
What irks is the leaping on any and every change to 'prove global warming' when the summation of the data actually seems to say 'well stuff changes and always has done, irrespective of a bit of coal burning'
Evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW.
Or as a remarkably less intelligent than I thought person said to me 'Of course AGW is real, I've seen ice melting'
Of course one uses a thermometer.
Carefully sited at an airport in direct line of the apron where the big jets rev up.
How else are you gonna get 'global warming'
Without invoking a single tree ring from an obscure tree found only in outer mongolia.
Or measuring the intake water of ship engines travelling in shipping lanes behind other ships..
There: That's it. All in the subject.
The average content consumer wants fast cloud servers run by someone else and a POS slab to access them with.
Only content creators in the most general sense need a desktop.
And I cant wait for voice recognition to evict this keebored
Many things affect saleability beyond mere price and performance, especially in the consumer arena. Or lets put it another way, that arena has a radically different and emotional approach to what constitutes performance, or value.
It was summed up years ago by a man who almost made a living out of selling electric guitars.
"we aren't selling guitars, we are selling dreams: whether it plays well or not is irrelevant. If its what he Starts play, it sells."
Apple epitomises that.
As does any 'fashion' brand.
I think you are right. Addicts are if not undeterred, certainly unable to abandon habits.
After oil and legal pharmaceuticals, aided by anti-drug legislation, illicit drugs are the worlds third biggest industry, I believe.
Employing millions and generating huge (largely untaxed) profits.
Nowadays it would probably be online, or I would ask on line
And that's where classical economics doesn't hold sway.
If the government nationalised the air we breathe and taxed us for breathing till the pips squeaked, the higher the tax the more the income until people start to commit suicide. It is somewhat that way with road fuel. There is an irreducible minimum of it that we need to get around and have a life at all. Below that high taxation will struggle to push us.
People need a house and will pay whatever they have to to obtain one.
These markets are characterised by the lack of discretionary choice.
In terms of consumer products we have HUGE discretionary choice.
I once bought a £55 book for one line alone.
It was an immensely complex instruction whose purpose was to set up a printer attached to a parallel port on a SUN Sparc station.
Since I had already wasted two days of time valued at at least £500 a day trying to get this to happen, £55 tax deductible was cheap at the price.
And yes, it worked!
Credit risk is low in an expanding economy.
Its when that expanding economy falters, that credit risk mushrooms.
The greens are well on the way there. But we dont need to actively do it.
Juts sit back whilst the idealists destroy everything that works, on the basis that its unfair in some way, and then we will *all* die, equally and together.
Of course. Deductive logic always starts from an assumption, and thereby in the end all logic that applies to the real world is inductive.
I aksed a socialist what he means by the term. "I think its all to do with how society treats its weakest members".
"Oh?" I queried. "Isn't that a bit unfair? Why not its strongest members, or the ones with red hair and perfect teeth?"
The irony is that who in the end are those massive corporations going to sell to, if there are no affluent classes to act as a market for their goods?
Yes, its possible to concieve of techno based neo feudalism, of a really nasty sort - more perhaps like Tsarist Russia or Communist Russia, where all the production is co-opted to make a few people very comfortable, and the rest just die.
But that's why we have a democracy.
One wonders how the internet - never nationalised and never in public ownership, managed to bring IP data packets to everyone?
Its the myth that only centralised command and control can actually generate standards.
That is, pardon me, utter codswallop. People adhere to standards because that way they make more profits. In the end local grids would have adhere to common standards because that way the same electrical appliances could be sold. We have, worldwide, without a world government, broadly two electrical standards at the domestic level - 110V 60Hz and 230V 50Hz, plus minus.
Likewise train lines are standard world wide.
DVDS are standard, world wide, regional codes and DRM aside. Globalisation drives standards, not world government.
...in a situation with a global oversupply of labour and improving skill sets up in Asia and Africa?"
By going massively hi-tech. And having the arms to defend its wealth against those who would seek to take it from them.
De Gaulle built the French Nuclear industry largely on the basis that he didn't want to be dictated to by OPEC.
If you want a nation to survive and prosper when global forces are turbulent, you isolate it, and make it as self sufficient as possible.
And throw money at real education, as opposed to political indoctrination, to assist the best and brightest to construct things that will make use of low resources and be very effective,
In that process sadly, the not so best and not so brightest will have to accept that they sadly didn't get the best education, and there are not necessarily the top jobs available.
However there are always the arts...and humanities, and so on.
As the old Jewish joke goes :
"This is my eldest son, and we are so proud, he is the finest concert pianist of the decade.
And this is my daughter. She is a writer and her books are acclaimed everywhere.
This is my youngest son. Sadly he is only a tailor.
But he feeds the whole family"
The model that I find most attractive is that an economy is essentially a complex dynamic system and a very non linear one at that. Any attempt to 'control' it is useless as the only way to do that is to damp down its ability to respond to almost anything, so command and control economies are OK if nothing changes, but will be inefficient in times of rapid (technological?) growth.
Laissez faire capitalism doesn't attempt to control, it just follows.
And that may ultimately be the least worst of all approaches. In the absence of an external moral standard, one can only judge attempts to control economies on the moral standards of those who have imposed them. That is, for example, did the application of communism result in the sort of world those that espoused its principles wanted? I would say not.
In the UK 15 years of Labour has resulted in a less, not more, equal society.
And there I find myself poised on the horns of a dilemma. Those that espouse the sort of Corbynist policies are all good well meaning people for the most part: They see politics as a means of expressing ideals about the nation state, and ideals about human progress that are arguably laudable.
Those that decry them, do so on the grounds that such an idealistic approach is not only massively implausible, but, if implemented, would lead to in many cases the reverse of the 'ideal' solution.
We have in effect a battlefield between idealism and pragmatism in terms of the political map, and that strikes at the very heart of the matter, which is I believe expressed very simply: What, in the final analysis, is the point of government at all?
To the Left it would seem to be a moral instrument tasked with presenting a hope filled picture of human endeavour. To the pragmatic right, it is merely a necessary evil that should impinge upon the freedom of the individual only so far as to ensure some form of social stability and cohesion.
Pragmatists are more humble: They do not presume to know what the fate of Man should be, nor seek to dictate its terms. Merely that men do not routinely slaughter each other, steal from each other, and obey the minimal set of public codes that seem reasonable to the majority.
To me the flaw in the Left's model is that if people do not willingly follow its tenets, they insist on enforcing them, by diktat, legislation or deep moralising. In so doing they oppress the very class they claim to represent, because they 'know better' than the people themselves 'what is good for them'.
If we, the people , do not know what is good for us, why on earth do we have a vote at all?
And indeed, we can see that where Leftish power structures really rule, that democratic right becomes an irrelevance and a nuisance. As the standing joke goes:
"Democracy means one man, one vote. And I am that man" (attributed to a fictitious Robert Mugabe).
What ultimately do we expect a government to deliver in economic terms, and what ultimately is its scope?
The Assumptive Close of the Left has been to skip over the question of whether or not it is a valid thing for a government to engage in social and economic engineering at all, to move the agenda to the exact means by which it shall do it.
It may be time to challenge that assumption, because in times of rapid change and deep political instability and economic fragility, it is possible that government's role must needs change to simply ensure political stability at almost any price, or risk being swept aside by forces who have no intention of preserving social order, freedom or democracy, but imply using force of arms or naked economic power to dominate for the narrow interests of a very few.
Finally, in the context of economics, the real correlation of 20th century growth has been one single fact alone. Petroleum.
Lightweight independent machines to replace the sweat of the working man's brow (or his horse) , running on dirt cheap fuel, allowed a complete and total transformation of production and transport (and war)..
Electricity generation followed by cost reducing the application of that fuel. The devastating combination of fossil fuel and electrical energy means that anywhere any time you have a power source to do the 'heavy lifting' at far far less cost than human energy. Toss in computer technology and robotics, and that's another layer of white collar work that simply vanishes. Add expert systems to THAT and good bye to many skilled jobs as well - how much of e.g. general practice of doctors is matching a reported set of symptoms to an internalised database of disease knowledge and producing a diagnosis and a treatment plan? How hard is it to make a driverless train or car that is safer than a human driven one?
No, the reality of the 20th century was nothing to do with politics, or economic theory, and everything to do with the rapid exploitation of technology, especially power technology, and post WWII the IT revolution.
Nobody intended it to happen, no one designed it on ideological grounds: It happened because it could.
Ex of the sort of totalitarian systems that would e.g. Ban the Wheel in a hugely Luddite system that would 'restore the dignity of human labour' and keep peasants in their place forever we are stuck with a population level that can not be sustained without the application of massive amounts of energy and highly developed technology.
All those urban Greens who dream longingly of windmills and solar panels would be dead within a week if that was all we had to rely upon.
And that is the irony of politics. The urge to achieve idealised solutions, and the transformation of politics into a battlefield of morally inspired ideals, is ultimately the gross decadence of the West. Before you can go chasing ideals, first of all you need a society and infrastructure that actually works well enough to keep its population alive. And defend it from those who see it as nothing more than a morally decayed occupier of a bit of real estate that would be highly welcome to them.
Economic growth is more or less a symptom that you have such a system in place. Economic growth relies on a very few things, and none of them are ideals.
It relies on a sufficient resource base to draw upon, and sufficiently sophisticated population to understand and maintain the system that exploits those resources and just enough political authority to ensure that the fruits of that exploitation are distributed sufficiently to avoid major political instability, or, failing that, a sufficiently cynical 'peacekeeping' force that divides the world into those that shall have, and those that shall not, on pain of death.
Economics and economic theory is almost irrelevant in that picture. As are emotional ideals.
And the philosophy of Marxism, that drives the left, is almost utterly irrelevant in a world in which there are no human workers, only machines.
"...you're looking at half a BEELION PCs running Windows 10 sometime in March 2016...."
.. to .an opposable thumb, for this?
With its 'acoustically contoured sound chamber' that was in fact a fibre moulding from a production car heater IIRC.
And a cheap elliptical speaker as used in the 60's TVS of the previous decade..
PSYOPS exists, you know, and people in panic rarely think logical.
E.g. Climate Change.
How long before the motherboard itself comes with a TB of SSD memory already on it?
And if you smoked said pork the problems would be solved......
...until they showed it gave you lung cancer.
they are not selling Zyklon B...
Most websites that are useful these days seem to depend on being able to set cookies - deliberately one assumes..
That's the result of all this cookie legislation. Instead of 'we use stealth cookies that you can disable if you are smart' its now 'we have made cookies mandatory for the operation of this site, and if you don't want to let us set them, you cannot use our site'.
Bit more than that. I've heard pellets rustling through the leaves about 150m from where someone was shooting.
I reckon top range is 200m, but once over 50 m is definitely sub lethal and at 100m unlikely top even sting.
Unless you are loaded with other than birdshot.
"it seems probable that some or all of the shot will have landed outside of his back garden"
Not if he shot straight up, as he claimed.
Shotguns dont have much carry at all.
200m maybe at 45 degrees.
if he had a reasonably large garden, very unlikely a high angle shot would have gone anywhere else.
With respect, shotguns were designed to hit fast moving highly manoeuvrable objects at moderate range.
And be reasonably safe at so doing - the kinetic energy of the pellets drops away fast over 100m or so.
They are the weapon of choice for anti-drone flak operations.
Offshore wind really IS that intermittent
its a bit of a self fulfilling thing: after all who wants to go into a profession dominated by the opposite sex?