Text 1174, 207 rader
Skriven 2004-10-26 23:34:18 av Adam Flinton (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 1168 av Gary Wiltshire (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Article on WIPO & the public good
=============================================
From: Adam Flinton <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com>

Gary Wiltshire wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:10:30 +0100, Adam Flinton
> <adam@NOSPAM_softfab.com>  wrote:
>
>>>> Indeed which is why New York to London should take no longer than
>>>> 3   hours.
>>>
>>>   Only if time were the ONLY factor.  However there is less
>>> QUALITATIVE  difference between a 3 hour trip vs and 8 hour trip on
>>> the  one hand and a  trip of many days on the other.
>>>
>>
>> So then why don't peopel demand high speed london<>sydney or new
>> york<>aukland?
>
>
> Most people would very much like to have that, but as I've said speed
> isn't the only factor.  There is a series of trade-offs, price for example.
>

There is but there are enough rich people who would wish a 3 hour trip to New
York & there are enough middle-poor people who would settle for an 8 hour trip.

>>
>>
>> Indeed. They discontinued because you could only go supersonic over
>> water & you had to be from a trusted country as opposed to a subsonic
>> which can be sold to anyone.
>
>
> There is so much subsonic transatlantic traffic which never goes inland
> that the entire trade could have been taken over by SSTs if they were
> practical.

Concorde was noisy & was not allowed to be sold in large numbers to politically
dodgy countries unlike subsonic airliners which anyone with the cash could buy.

> They were not - and your notion of refueling them in flight
> for Pacific trade, only necessary BECAUSE they are gas guzzlers
> compared  to 747s, would be ludicrously dangerous.  Acceptable risks in
> military  flight don't necessarily translate to commercial.
>

Indeed which is why it was an odd request & one which put concorde into the
same export restriction as serious mil kit.


>>
>>
>>>> Why? Is a vehicle going over 100 mph also uneconomic?
>>>
>>>   Total non sequitur to anything I said.
>>>
>>
>> You were drawing an arbitary line, I was merely trying to discern
>> where  you had placed that line.
>
>
> There is no distinct line.  It's a tradeoff between cost and time.
>

Yup but on most flights there are at least 2 classes of accomodation,
attracting different prices & yet both are often full. Same speed, same flight,
different cost.

>>
>> The line always used to be means of transport exceeding 100 mph.
>>
>> Both the condom & a pill will protect you from pregnancy. An apricot
>> generally will not.
>
>
> But you weren't talking about pregnancy, you were talking about aids,
> which is why I introduced an apricot among your apples and oranges.
> You  also lack imagination where the possible uses of an apricot are
> concerned.
>

The pill liberated women (& men) from unwanted pregancy. Unwanted pregnancy
used to (& in some places still does) mean shame & various penalties in additon
to the financial etc effects.

However now unrestricted sexual congress can in many places in effect carry a
death sentence. Both the pill & the condom protect from unwanted pregnancy but
the pill will not help protect you from the possible death sentence where a
condom will.


>>
>>>> So coal + nuke + gas/oil fired boilers pumping steam provide the
>>>> majority of the electric power around you.
>>>
>>>   No.  Nuke is not as important here as it is in, say, France.  I
>>> think  it's  something the French are doing very well.  Over here the
>>> very  word  "nuclear" invokes screaming hysterics among the
>>> chattering  classes.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say it was as important. However steam generated electricity
>> can be created by just about any heat source & as such all the above
>> are  steam engines.
>
>
> Gas turbines are not "boilers pumping steam" there is not boiler and no
> steam.
>

Indeed not. However that is to assume that all oil/(natural) gas fired power
stations use gas turbines.

>> Many weapons systems are vastly uneconomic. US & SU history is (was)
>> littered with them. In part the SU collapsed because the lack of
>> economy  in weapons production.
>
>
> And we did it better.
>

Indeed but that does not deflect from the point that economics & defence are
unlikely bedfellows.

>>
>>>> Indeed, because mass transit at high speed over long distance esp
>>>> if   involving the poor is "destabilizing".
>>>
>>>   What are you prattling about now?  You think we have a black
>>> helicoper  plot against letting the poor travel?
>>>
>>
>> It's not "black helicopter" you dim sod, it's an established fact. Be
>> poor & from a poor country & the only way to travel is via "people
>> smugglers" because of this fact.
>
>
> Your the dim sod.  Your talking about people illegally crossing our
> border  which has nothing to do with the economics of travel or any plot
> against  letting poor people travel.
>

If noone could travel over long distances or if it was slow & difficult there
would be little need for immigration etc laws. They exist because of the threat
of massive immigration brought about by cheap & rapid mass transit over long
distances.

We have no problem with Dutch or French people or in extremis even Belgians
popping over & vice versa. However an airliner can deliver large numbers of the
world's poor in the richer places fast & efficiently.

Ergo we have increasingly tight immigration & asylum laws.


>> Well what a surprise. It's as if people who learn via copying then go
>> on  to create & thus others copy them who then go on to create etc.etc.
>
>
> That's right and it involves absorbing such western concepts as
> scientific  method and capitalism.
>

Ah yes the Chinese lack of scientific progress such as the printing press, the
rocket etc.etc. gee I'll bet all those chinese had no idea what money was till
they met men from the West.

>>>> If you were to decide to design an aircraft today, would you start
>>>> by   watching birds & working it all out from first principles?
>>>
>>>   That would depend on what I was trying to accomplish.
>>>
>>
>> A working heavier than air flying machine.
>
>
> Again, depends on what you're trying to accomplish.  A working
> ornithopter, for example, would have a distinct niche.
>

Indeed.

>>
>>>> So will we be conversing in Latin or Greek?
>>>
>>>   No, Adam.  English.  AMERICAN English. <g>
>>>
> Increasingly the world is learning its English from us.
>
>> However your western & eastern allusions did humor, with their
>> similarities to various statements made a long time ago wrt Rome &
>> Constantinople.
>
>
> Back to apples and oranges, Adam.  Rome and Constantinople were far
> more  similar to each other.
>

Yup. But the time & expense & danger involved in travelling between Rome
& Constantinople then was greater than the equivalent journey between
any 2 major cities on earth today.

& that is before you factor in our common means of instant communication
such as the phone or the internet.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)