Switch off at the socket?

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be?

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , J G Miller wrote:
The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.
No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

The governments has always sold worthless bits of paper ever since paper
currency became the norm, and the government has always been able to act
like a legalised Mafia, which is, after all, what a governemnet actually
is. The top Mafia that self legalises itself, as the price you pay for
making all the others illegal. and 'Protecting' you from the ones
outside its jurisdiction..

Rod.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:44:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

Yes, of course -- why do you think banks and other financial institutions
are so keen to sell on debt? It is called hedging the risk, or
as some might say, distributing or even sharing (as in passing on)
the future losses to others.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

See, for example,

http://www.amazon.co.UK/Hedging-Instruments-Risk-Management-Derivatives/dp/0071443126

But remember that the whole financial system is built on perception and
trust -- how much is that GBP 10 note in your pocket actually worth, or
that stock certificate for 100 shares in Northern Rock plc?

One day the piece of paper is very valuable because others are prepared
to exchange it for lots of other pieces of paper or digits in a computer
database, and sometimes the item has even less value than the paper on
which it is printed.

Talking of digits in a computer database, do many banks have the active
account balances stored in nothing more than magnetic or optical media
or the last printed statement?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:51:49 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:51:31 +0100, Mark wrote:

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

Or that the UKofGB&NI is a sufficiently affluent and large mass market
for the multinational corporations to target with their goods and services.

Well, in my industry (medical x-ray) the multinationals have long ago
ceased to give any credibility to the idea that the sun shines out of
the Ar*ehole of the British Empire.

The value of the UK market to them is strictly just (however many)
units sold here per year. All the international trade shows have moved
out of the country and our status is lower than all the ex-soviet
eastern bloc countries which are now re-equipping with EU money which
largely has come from the UK.

Derek

In article , Jerry
writes

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact

Its a well known fact that Bill is a closet resist. He resists going
into the closet and resists coming out of the closet. ;-)

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea how
big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000 to
remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50 such
systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time that it
took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to get rid of
all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the atmosphere,
not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be burned, releasing
their captured CO2 in the timescale.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

Bring em on.

--
Ron

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:

if you were put in a position were you had to
kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family starving
you would do so

I'd considered it until I realised you don't get much meat on a ratboy. And
the chavettes are way too fatty even by my standards.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be?

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?


Better pack a fleece, then.

And a head-torch, it might be dark.

--
Ron

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:


Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Please feel free to refute the Wikipedia article I cited with a sound
reasoned argument, because it fits with everything I was taught by doctors
and professors in the subject field.