Re: UK RICS report says solar takes 208 years to repay...nonsense! Help needed!

[Andy Hall]

I seem to remember enorgh to know that the EU covers the same areas as had
blueblood families controling multi countries.In times past.....

That hasn't gone unnoticed.

I wasn't being quite that complex about France, other than that
economically, France lost a lot more out of the war of independence
than England did

 

[Doctor Drivel]

That is ONE of the things that a gun MAY be designed for.

It is not designed to run your heating system that is for sure . A guns is
designed to kill people.

 

[Doctor Drivel]

Are you really trying to use the words of an actor as evidence for your
case? No wonder you decided on the name of Doctor Drivel.

I do recognise drivel instantly.

 

[Andy Hall]

I do recognise drivel instantly.

Mirror, mirror on the wall.........

 

[no spam]

Wrong conclusion. You should not equate not wanting to walk around

I don't expect my employer to provide anything of the sort. Actually, I'm
my employer anyway.
Moreover, I don't tend to work in places or at times of high personal
risk.

However, for a nurse, who may be vulnerable, who by virtue of her job is
potentially exposed to personal risk, I think it's entirely reasonable
that the employer should do something to help with that even if it's only
a contribution towards the taxi fare home.

As I pointed out in another post there wasn't much more the hospital could
have done other than walking each person to their cars.

Do you imagine that this alleged big brother has the time and staff levels
to do that comprehensively?

Not yet. Think about the past and how things have changed from one decade
to the next. Things have gone from bad to worse and the change has gained
speed. I'm willing to bet that in the next 5-7 years computers will be
doing most of this stuff taking the human mostly out of the loop. A good
example would be electronic eavesdropping. Years ago you had to have
someone either sit there and listen or listen through hours upon hours of
tape. Today a computer can be set to 'listen' for specific words and flag
the recording for a human to check on.

Actually I think that there's a big problem with that. It's reasonable
that the government should contribute where needed to the *funding*, but I
don't think it needs to be in the service delivery business.

The problem with that is the government gets to decided where it is needed
and since its the 'governments money' it gets to decided how it is spent.
We have what is suposed to be a system like that. If you are really in need
the government will pay for your medical care. BUT you have to do it the
way the government thinks it needs to be done and how much a doctor can
charge for any treatment.

I think that you have a vivid imagination.

I don't think so. I can do many things w/o government OK that a lot of
people in the US can't. Then again there are other things I could do in my
former state that I can't do w/o government OK now.

Actually that is somewhat mor onerous than it is here.

If you are in the UK and living in a major city I doubt it. I'm willing to
bet that it would be illegal for you to change the electrical outlets in
your own home. I'm sure that you would not be allowed to put in your own
electrical meter and breaker box. You most likely are required to have an
licensed electrician do such work. I also bet that if you live in a
town/city limit you can not install a well on your property at all.

Go to your local libariry and ask to see a copy of all the electric and
plumbing codes that cover where you live. You'll probably be handed several
2-3 inch (10-15 cm) thick ring binders full of codes.

That depends. If they don't expect to use government provided
healthcare and other services if they injure themselves then there would
be no need to have laws about helmets

But in the UK the government DOES provide the health care. From what you
said because it does it should have the 'right' to tell people how to live,
correct?

Equally, there would be no need to have seatbelt laws either and I know
that many U.S. states have that, so your argument is a bit thin.

Every state in the US as well as the federal government all provide medical
care for anyone. All you have to do is go into your nearest emerency room
and they are REQUIRED by law to treat you. This is one of the reasons given
when they passed the helmet and seatbelt laws.

That doesn't follow at all.

Sure it does. If people are too stupid to care wear a helmet they might get
hurt and therefore we must pass a law to protect these stupid people. Once
you pass a law you have to have people to enforce that law otherwise it
isn't followed.

Seatbelts?

Nope. Such as not burning brush during a drought or driving 50 mph down a
residential street or not dumping your sewage in the gutter.

I wouldn't say that it's fine. I would say that it doesn't particularly
bother me because I don't do things that would cause them to show any
interest.

Another example of differnt mind sets. So you'd have no problem with the
police searching your house because you don't have anything to hide? If so
what's the difference?

You may well be right. However, I don't think that it's a big enough
issue to care about that much. If I had my way, there would be a

That's one of the biggest problems out there. Slippery slope, the frog in
the cooking pot, the camel's nose in the tent or whatever cliché you want to
use. By the time it reaches a point there is something you do care about
its probably going to be too late.

minimal public sector and the hangers on would have to go and get real
jobs. However, that is not realistic

Why not? It took a lot of effort but a while back the US told some of them
they had X number of years of help then no more money. The number has gone
a down a little and we still don't have people starving the streets.

There is quite a difference between having the technology in place and its
use.

There's a difference but not much. You don't seem feel that way when it
comes to the private ownership of firearms.

Well... when I'm emperor.....

No need to wait that long. You might just be surprised just how many people
out there think the same way as you do. All you have to do is get them
organized and voting. You didn't get in this mess overnight and you ain't
getting out of it that fast either.

 

[no spam]

To be honest, it's quite unlikely that I will ever visit or even want to
visit rural Tennessee. Therefore the situation that you describe is
not likely to happen.

Standard liberal response when the opponent is correct. Avoid the question
and insult.

You can find this situation anywhere in the world.

I have a more optimistic view than that.

Then you are either blind, ignorant or a fool. Human nature is what it is
no matter what your view is.

I don't think so.

See answer above.

A better solution would be to offer him something that he would like to
do, preferably involving your spending time with him (well not you
perhaps).

Another liberal response, change the question to fit their line of thought.
Then add an insult.

That's somewhat fanciful. Even so, do you imagine that it will give
him a high sense of self esteem if you tell him that if he doesn't sit
still, that you are going to spank him?

You lost the thread. The above is in response to the criminal who had been
arrested many, many times and released before he killled a man.

That's almost certainly true.

In the real world, realities are somewhere between the two extremes that
you describe.

What is my extreme? That people should be punished for not following the
laws?

 

[no spam]

The real solution would be to reflect and ask yourself why the

Even if it later turns out that the perpetrator didn't actually commit the
crime?

For the deterrent factor it wouldn't matter. If possible criminals saw that
they were going to stand a very, very good chance of being punished and
punished quickly some of them would not commit some crimes.

 

[no spam]

The UK government, in practice, is basically the same as the US
government.

Trust me, Americans expect the government to take care of them as well.
Why else does the Department of Homeland Security exist ? Why does
legislation like USA-PATRIOT exist ?

There's a difference between protecting people and taking care of them. The
military and law enforcement protect people. Doctors and parents take care
of people.

The CCTV is not "government controlled". The police use security cameras
in the USA as well.

I know of no US city that has cameras covering areas as large as the ones in
the UK.

How about removing thousands of legitimate voters from the electoral
registers because they're likely to vote the wrong way ?

Huh? What does trying to keep the voting role accurate have to do with big
brother? I guess if the government was forcing voters to wear tracking
devices to prove they lived in the voting district . . .

 

[no spam]

As a survivor of many cases of road rash, I must disagree.
Number One; many folks on bikes crash and wind up living on the public
dollar for life. BTDT. Well, not for =life=!

I've been called hard hearted but why do you and I be forced to pay for some
one else's actions?

Numero Dos; hitting an object at highspeed (in my case, a dragonfly on
the interstate) will just about take your head off. It ripped my glasses
off my face and subjected me to having my eyeballs sandblasted for 25
miles til I could get home.
Numer Drei: I personally have had my life saved =twice= by my helmets.

Otherwise, I'm with you Bubba!

Therefore you don't fit in the stupid people category.

I once took a thumb sized rock to the helmet. I have also had a huge
grasshopper in the forehead (before I switched to a full face helmet) and
even a bird to the chest (that STINGS and will leave a mark!!).

 

[no spam]

Quite well in fact.

Do a google search on Leyte Gulf and Midway.

Not with what the German had in the air. They didn't even have a decent
torpedo bomber. Stukas were easy shot down as they had to dive
vertically. The German never had a heavy bomber, or one good a sinking
ships.

US dive bombers took out a lot of ships. IIRC, the largest Japanese
battleship sunk in WWII was taken out by dive bombers.

Do a little more study in military history.

You need to read more and not US books. The Germans making a successful
invasion of the UK was amazingly remote. ..and they were coming over in
towed concrete barges that needed the front blown off blocking the beach.
Barges that would turned over at the wash of a destroyer. The British
fleet only needed to sailed full speed around them and they would have
gone. Yes, yes.....

Even if that were true there would have been on British destroyer to make
that wash.

You need to read more and not US books.

Read anybook you want the facts still stand. No navy of the era, or even
today, could survive in an battle where the enemy had complete air
superiority. Without a navy the battle of Brittan would have been nothing
but an old fashion siege. History has proven over and over that in a siege
the besieged always lose without outside help. It might have taken a while
but eventually the British would have had to sue for peace.

You have top get ashore first..and with a navy too. You need to read more
and not US books.

Strange we never invaded Japan. What book should I read about that
invasion?

They did. They needed raw materials imported, just like Germany.... and
the Royal Navy had an effective blockade on ships entering Germany from
the North Sea.
You need to read more and not US books.

You need to read what I have written. The Royal Navy would have cease to be
a factor if Hitler had not been nuts at the time and pounded the Royal Air
Force into the dust. It could have been wiped out at his leisure while at
the same time bombing the English industry out of existence the way the
Allies did German industry later in the war.

By bringing it in in convoys. Duh!!!

No RAF no convoys, DUH!!

 

[no spam]

The reason he lost the Battle of Britain was the fact the RAF fighters

That is what they were supposed to do.


Because the RAF and ground AA prevented them from doing so.

I never thought any one was that ignorant about the military tactics and
history. Before Hitler ordered the change in bombing to London the
Luftwaffe was in the process rendering the RAF useless. FYI, you don't even
need to shoot down planes do to this. All you have to do is take out their
bases. Read some real military history books and not the comic books with
bunches of pictures and very few words.

Germany would never have had control of the air. British aircraft
production outstripped Germany in 1940.

You could produce 1000 times more aircraft and it wouldn't help you if you
didn't have any bases to launch them.

They would not have. The Spitfire was a superior plane.

For what mission? For dogfighting vs the ME109 yes but for attacking high
altitude bombers the ME wins hands down. It also wasn't much for ground
support or attack.

You need to read more and not US books.

You need to read more military history.

 

[Andy Hall]

If you are in the UK and living in a major city I doubt it. I'm willing to
bet that it would be illegal for you to change the electrical outlets in
your own home.

Then you would be wrong.

I'm sure that you would not be allowed to put in your own
electrical meter and breaker box. You most likely are required to have an
licensed electrician do such work.

You would be wrong there as well

I also bet that if you live in a
town/city limit you can not install a well on your property at all.

I don't particular care about that.

Go to your local libariry and ask to see a copy of all the electric and
plumbing codes that cover where you live. You'll probably be handed several
2-3 inch (10-15 cm) thick ring binders full of codes.

Wrong again. There is one standard which has national applicability
and it is considerably smaller in size than you suggest.

But in the UK the government DOES provide the health care.

It provides some measure of healthcare. Nobody is compelled to use it.

From what you
said because it does it should have the 'right' to tell people how to live,
correct?

Incorrect.

Wearing seatbelts and crash helmets are common sense measures.

Every state in the US as well as the federal government all provide medical
care for anyone. All you have to do is go into your nearest emerency room
and they are REQUIRED by law to treat you. This is one of the reasons given
when they passed the helmet and seatbelt laws.

I don't see the issue. If you choose not to use reasonable safety
measures then Darwin principles should apply anyway.

Sure it does. If people are too stupid to care wear a helmet they might get
hurt and therefore we must pass a law to protect these stupid people. Once
you pass a law you have to have people to enforce that law otherwise it
isn't followed.

That depends on the culture. On issues like this, most people in the
UK tend to be reasonably law abiding. One doesn't see *that* many
motor cyclists without helmets. As far as seatbelts are concerned,
it's somewhat worse because people presumably feel that they are less
vulnerable or something stupid like that.

If one goes to other parts of Europe, perceptions are different.

Another example of differnt mind sets. So you'd have no problem with the
police searching your house because you don't have anything to hide? If so
what's the difference?

Context, resources and reason to do so.

That's one of the biggest problems out there. Slippery slope, the frog in
the cooking pot, the camel's nose in the tent or whatever cliché you want to
use. By the time it reaches a point there is something you do care about
its probably going to be too late.

You have a vivid imagination.

There's a difference but not much. You don't seem feel that way when it
comes to the private ownership of firearms.

Different issue entirely.

No need to wait that long. You might just be surprised just how many people
out there think the same way as you do. All you have to do is get them
organized and voting. You didn't get in this mess overnight and you ain't
getting out of it that fast either.

I'm not in a mess, thanks.

 

[Andy Hall]

I know of no US city that has cameras covering areas as large as the ones in
the UK.

They may be well hidden.

After all, there are reds under the bed........

 

[Balanced View]

They may be well hidden.

After all, there are reds under the bed........

Man it must be getting crowded under there now, it's "islamofacists",
"Liberals" and Gay couples under the bed as well.
It must be very distressing after you have already duct taped all your
doors and windows shut to keep out the dirty bombs
and anthrax to find that you are now trapped with no room left under
your bed to hid. There's always some bogeyman
under Americans beds, maybe that's why they are so screwed up over sex?

 

[no spam]

Sure it is. Do you agree with the government requiring people to wear

So, you'd do away with all social programs, social security, welfare,
disability, food stamps etc?

Not all but a very large percentage of them and limit the amount of time a
person can be on the programs and/or money a person can get in a life time.
Today the system is not used to help people in need but to buy votes.


There are people in my home town where the third (probably fourth now)
generation of familes are living with or on 'government support'. In some
cases its not their fault. Its the way the system is set up. An example
with fake numbers. If you are out of work and getting $1000/ month from the
government. Then you get a job making $500/month the government cuts off
all of your support. IOW, by getting a job you are losing $500/month so you
are almost forced to keep taking the government money.

 

[no spam]

Then you would be wrong.

I'll take your word for this and the below.

You would be wrong there as well


Wrong again. There is one standard which has national applicability and
it is considerably smaller in size than you suggest.

This I doubt. Just the discription of the necessary info on what is 'code'
for what can go into an outlet box can take up half a page.

It provides some measure of healthcare. Nobody is compelled to use it.

But if someone does something stupid (ride w/o a helmet, jump from his roof
onto a trampoline, etc) and gets hurt you, via taxes, will be paying for his
care. Correct?

Incorrect.

Wearing seatbelts and crash helmets are common sense measures.

Never delt with the public much have you? Common sense isn't as common as
most people think. You have people who ride w/o helmets, stick their hands
under running lawn mowers, put ladders in the back of pick up trucks, get
drunk and drive.

I don't see the issue. If you choose not to use reasonable safety
measures then Darwin principles should apply anyway.

But it doesn't because the government uses its power to keep these people
alive and breeding.

My issue is that when someone else is paying for something for you they
feel, and may have, the have the to tell those people how they can use
what's being paid for.

That depends on the culture. On issues like this, most people in the UK
tend to be reasonably law abiding. One doesn't see *that* many motor
cyclists without helmets. As far as seatbelts are concerned, it's
somewhat worse because people presumably feel that they are less
vulnerable or something stupid like that.

Some what but it also depends on the length the law has been in effect as
well as the odds of being caught and the penalty for not following the law.

Context, resources and reason to do so.

What does that matter? If the police want to search your home they must
have a reason, why should they be required to tell you and why would you
even mind if you don't have anything to hide? (I'm hoping you can see the
sarcasm in that)

You have a vivid imagination.

Let's see. First it was a warning on a pack of cigarettes. Then punitive
taxes on them. Moving on to banning smoking in public buildings. Next bans
on smoking in private buildings with public access. Make it no smoking in
open air public spaces (parks, sports arenas, etc). Then a ban on smoking
in multi-family housing. Next a ban on cigarettes in an auto. Now a ban on
smoking in private homes.

First car manufactures were required to install seatbelts. Next laws were
passed requiring their use but written so that you could not be stopped just
for no seatbelt. Then the laws were changed so that you could be stopped.
What's next here?

What's next in general? Laws have already been passed on the food you may
order in a restaurant. Laws are in effect that limit what you can say if it
is 'hurtful' to others. There are laws which punish you for what the
government says you were thinking at the time you committed a crime. Think
about the end product is these follow the history of cigarette laws.

One other thing, think about how many laws have gotten more restrictive vs
how many laws have be relaxed.

Different issue entirely.

How so? Oh I see. One is the stupid people in the public having control
and the other is the government controling the technology. And we all know
that governments never do anything wrong, criminal or against the best
interest of the people they govern.

I'm not in a mess, thanks.

IOW, you do think that socialized medicine, public education and other
government delivery of businesses are fine. If you really thought they were
a problem you would be trying to change them.

 

[The Natural Philosopher]

Um, isn't that the case from top to bottom? It's a fallout of democracy
- the idea being that if the majority decide that things should be made
better for them, then it happens. Except at the moment the majority
isn't counted in terms of numbers of people, but in terms of donations
to politicians.

The biggest problem today is that to get a message across, you need to
use the media, and that costs money: That money is not forthcoming
without some kind of payback.

Ergo whoever you vote for, you vote for the oligarchy.

Unless political campaigns are severely audited so that anyone can stand
irrespective of a party machine or heavy cash backers and get a certain
amount of cash allocated for so doing, there will be nothing approaching
true democracy in our time.

 

[Owain]

This I doubt. Just the discription of the necessary info on what is 'code'
for what can go into an outlet box can take up half a page.

I don't think our "code" even mentions that.

Just checked - my copy of the IEE Wiring Regulations is 266 A4 (11"x8")
pages. Take away the Index and Appendices (which are mostly tables and
graphs for calculating cable sizes and protective devices) and Standard
Forms, and it comes in at 150 pages.

Now, I know the American regs have details of how socket-outlets have to
be spaced every so many inches along kitchen worktops and the like. Our
regs just say:

553-01-07 Where portable equipment is likely to be used, provision shall
be made so that the equipment can be fed from an adjacent and
conveniently accessible socket-outlet taking account of the length of
flexible cord normally fitted to portable appliances and luminaires.

Our Regs also say:

120-01-02 The Regulations ... are not intended to take the place of a
detailed specification or to instruct untrained persons or to provide
for every cicumstance.

Owain

 

[Andy Hall]

This I doubt. Just the discription of the necessary info on what is 'code'
for what can go into an outlet box can take up half a page.

What you doubt is irrelevant.

The relevant standard is British Standard 7671, also known by its more
common name as the IEE Wiring Regulations. It has national
applicability.

http://www.theiet.org/publishing/books/wir-reg/21844.cfm

Never delt with the public much have you? Common sense isn't as common as
most people think. You have people who ride w/o helmets, stick their hands
under running lawn mowers, put ladders in the back of pick up trucks, get
drunk and drive.

... and your point is?

But it doesn't because the government uses its power to keep these people
alive and breeding.
Sigh.



My issue is that when someone else is paying for something for you they
feel, and may have, the have the to tell those people how they can use
what's being paid for.

This is called taxation.

What does that matter? If the police want to search your home they must
have a reason, why should they be required to tell you and why would you
even mind if you don't have anything to hide? (I'm hoping you can see the
sarcasm in that)

So, you've just created a circular argument.

Let's see. First it was a warning on a pack of cigarettes. Then punitive
taxes on them. Moving on to banning smoking in public buildings. Next bans
on smoking in private buildings with public access. Make it no smoking in
open air public spaces (parks, sports arenas, etc). Then a ban on smoking
in multi-family housing. Next a ban on cigarettes in an auto. Now a ban on
smoking in private homes.

Hopefully. I think that is would be a really good idea.

IOW, you do think that socialized medicine, public education and other
government delivery of businesses are fine.

No I don't. One needs to separate the issues of payment and delivery.

If you really thought they were
a problem you would be trying to change them.

I have plenty of other battles to fight, thanks, and I pick those that
are easier to win and affect me more first.

 

[Owain]

So, you blokes have actually suceeded in killing all the lawyers?
Amazing.... It gives us hope, here in the states.

The Regs used to be written by Electrical Engineers. Earlier editions
were even shorter and more sensible. Now they're getting "harmonised"
and the politicians (many of whom are lawyers) are getting involved,
it's all going horribly wrong.

Owain