Click to get your own widget

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Beagle 3 Cubesat - Response

  I got this comment from an engineer whose competence has been well demonstrated in the way that matters:

"It all depends what you intend to do. If e.g. you intend to drill down below the surface, or smash large rocks - basically use a lot of force and/or energy, then you have to be a certain size. However if you just wanted to take pictures - then you could e.g. create small probes and even allow them to be blown around like Argo buoys.

However, the best strategy is to avoid going for the one-off. It is e.g. better to send 10 probes costing $100million each than 1 probe costing $1billion. This is not just a numbers game, that some will get through, but it is also because the reliability and efficiency vastly increases even after one or two probes. And this is really what Moores law is -- it is that the more of something you do -- the better you become.

This is a fundamental difference in working between academia and successful industry. An engineer given the money to send this probe would have been successful. It might not have done so much, but it would have got there. And the way they might have done that was by sending more than one.

Or let's be more specific. If I were planning this I would have built ten probes. The first one I would have thrown out of a tenement block and ran the "mission" using that. The next would have been dropped out a helicopter, plane, balloon, then a rockets.

Then I would have sent perhaps three devices 1/3 the size in the hope of at least one getting results. But this is not how academia thinks.
 

The most basic principle of engineering. I would never have awarded the contract to myself or indeed any university. Instead I would have a found someone who already produced remote probes in challenging environments, either for medical use or drains or buoys, and they would have got the contract."


 

Labels: , , ,


Saturday, May 24, 2014

Honour Colin Pillinger With Beagle 3 Cubesat - Daily Mail Letter of the week

    I got a notification (and a pen) from the Daily Mail that mine had been chosen as their letter of the week. Published 13th May. That is pretty cool. All the moreso since the letter, below, is one I am extremely proud of and which contains a proposal that could be literally world changing (the world being Mars). The letter had gone out to 30 odd British newspaper and not appeared when I googled it so I assumed it had not been used but the Mail don't put their letters online.

   I would, once again, like to take the opportunity to say that I think the Mail is the only real newspaper in Britain. The only one that goes looking for real news rather than rewriting press releases and "reports" from government, or government funded sock puppets (or in the Guardian's case, under the counter smears from Conservative central office or assorted genocidal Nazis). This is presumably why it is relentlessly denigrated by the propagandists at the Ministry of Truth BBC.

   I've shown it as printed in normal type normally, with my originals in italics. That makes it more difficult to read but the original article it was derived from was on my blog here.

   The editings have been done with respect for the content and must have taken time. I suspect they have improved my grammar a little, though sometimes the most grammatical is not the most impactful. The editor dropped the "Westminster" from "Westminster MPs" - I assume because it was used in the Mail across the country not just Scotland though local references to Clydespace and the Forth bridge cost were kept in, which is good.

  It was slightly shortened, remaining the longest letter of the day (May 13th).

   I am happy with that editing.

   Google still indicates no other Scottish or UK paper found it reached their literary standards. I may be biased but I think the Mail's literary judgement is better than theirs.

    I also trust their judgement on what is popular with readers more than the other papers - and on that I have the support of their rising number of readers as competitors readership falls.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sir,
       The death of Professor Colin Pillinger who dreamed up whose brainchild the 2003 spaceprobe Beagle 2 was, is a time for a little reflection thought.
 
      His brainchild  It was built on a shoestring and made so light that ESA couldn't find any excuse not to include it with its their probe to the red planet.

      Against all of the expectations of our political class it became incredibly popular, and a source of pride, across Britain.

       That Which shows good judgement by the people - finding life on Mars means life must be common across the universe  and. One life creating accident on Earth is possible but 2 and only 2 isn't. If there is a more important philosophical question than "are we alone in the universe" I have yet to hear it.

      Beagle 2 was renamed So they relabelled it a spaceprobe in its own right rather than just an experiment (& Pillenger was awarded gave him a CBE).

     But  Then it failed, as scientific experiments (and half of all Mars probes) often do when something unusual is being attempted if they are pushing the envelope.

       The "the" added ESA said it they would take it the Beagle programme over and do it "more efficiently" - at 10 times the cost. Our Westminster MPs told Pillinger why they thought Beagle 2 had failed explained to him, from the eminence of their technical knowledge, the reason for his failure. He hadn't spent enough (though they hadn't offered more) or taken long enough.

        ESA got their budget but "but" added, originally new sentence  Beagle 3 is still unlaunched. Yet another example of how our "space budget" largely isn't used for space but for co-opting something people are willing to see money spent on and then hijacking the money for the bureaucracy.

         I have written before about 
Now we have cubesats (square "black boxes" 10cm on a side launched into space - that are as revolutionary to space experimentation as containerisation was for shipping). And of how an engine is being designed that can drive a cubesat, or a cluster of them several, across the solar system. I suggested then they would be ideal for exploring and assaying the asteroids beyond Mars.

       They Cubesats work because as of Moore's Law predicted, that computer capacity doubles every 18 months, so equally efficient means devices can be made ever proportionately smaller.

        So lets see how much smaller. Beagle 2 was launched 11 years ago. Add a couple of years development time to 13 years and according to by Moore's Law capacity is up (2^8.6) 400 times - a cubesat of 100g 1/10th of a kg would be as efficient as Beagle 2 enough today.

        Finding microscopic life doesn't require size. Even a drill to find material beneath the surface, which is where any life on Mars is likely to be, need not be big. In fact, because of the square cube law, landing a small probe is easier than a large one.

          Cubesats (with "with" added 40% of all all those now in use around the ones in the world have Glaswegian hardware containing hardware produced in Glasgow) are being put in orbit now for under £100,000 and they are proving to be "proving to be" added a technology that which is game changing for space development.

          Beagle III would be much more complicated than 1 communications cube in Earth orbit. But how much more. It looks to me like  as though the cost of launching Beagle 3 "cost - 3" added would be far more expensive than cubesats at likely to be several million £s although that which is less than small change to government.

           Less  than we spend subsidising 1 single windmill. Less than 1 metre of the new Forth bridge.

           Is that 2 added Worth spending to answer if we get closer to answering arguably the ultimate question about life and the Universe?

            I would think Westminster, and all our best known philanthropists would fight for the opportunity to honour Professor Pillinger thus.
 
Neil Craig
-----------------------------------------------------------
   If there are no technical reason why I am wrong and I don't think there are, then I hope I and perhaps others can push this further. If government (UK or Scots) were to put up even £1 million I am sure sponsorship of any excess would be possible, as much of the much greater cost of Beagle 2 was raised privately.
-----------
PS The Forth bridge is only clearly cheaper if you just count the central span of 1,006m. The full length is 2,512m which comes to £916,000 per metre. 7/8th of this remains provable not engineering costs and the Holyrood politicians refuse to explain where it went.

Labels: , ,


Thursday, May 08, 2014

Colin Pillinger - Beagle 3 - Would Be A Fitting Memorial


 
 
Prof Pillinger was the driving force behind the ultimately doomed Mars lander, and was awarded a CBE in 2003.

His spokesman said he suffered a brain haemorrhage at his home in Cambridge and later died in hospital.

His family said his death was "devastating and unbelievable".
How the ill-fated Beagle 2 mission would have looked on Mars
He was best-known for the Beagle 2 mission to Mars, which was supposed to land on the planet on Christmas Day 2003 and search for signs of life, but didn't transmit and was presumed crashed.

He became a professor in interplanetary science at the Open University in 1991.
==============================================
      Beagle II has his brainchild. It was built on a shoestring and made so light that ESA couldn't find any excuse not to include it with their probe to the red planet.

      Against all of the expectations of our political class it became incredibly popular, and a source of pride, across Britain.

       Which shows good judgement by the people - finding life on Mars means life must be common across the universe. One life creating accident on Earth is possible but 2 and only 2 isn't. If there is a more important philosophical question than "are we alone in the universe" I have yet to hear it.

       So they relabelled it a spaceprobe in its own right rather than just an experiment (& gave him a CBE).

      Then it failed, as scientific experiments (& half of all Mars probes) often do if they are pushing the envelope.

       The proper thing to do was to send another. With the development work already done a new probe, tweaked in line with experience, would have been cheaper and more reliable. This is how generations of, edge of the envelope, aircraft were produced.

        Instead ESA said they would take it over and do it "more efficiently" at 10 times the cost & our Westminster MPs explained to him, from the eminence of their technical knowledge, the reason for his failure. He hadn't spent enough or taken long enough.

        ESA got their budget. Beagle 3 is still unlaunched. Yet another example of how our "space budget" largely isn't used for space but for co-opting something people are willing to see money spent on and then hijacking the money for the bureaucracy.

==========================================

        So how about this.

        I have written before about cubesats ("black boxes" 10cm on a side launched into space - as revolutionary to space experimentation as containerisation was for shipping). And of how an engine is being designed that can put drive a cubesat, or a cluster of several, across the solar system. I suggested then they would be ideal for exploring and assaying the asteroids beyond Mars.

       Cubesats work because of Moore's Law, that computer capacity doubles every 18 months, means devices can be made proportionately smaller.

        So lets see how much smaller. Beagle II was launched 11 years ago. Add a couple of years development time to 13 years and by Moore's Law capacity is up (2^8.6) 400 times. The original was 33.2 kg so that implies current equivalence of 1/10th of a kilogram - far lower than cubesats regularly are.

       Finding microscopic life doesn't require size. Even a drill to find material beneath the surface, which is where any life on Mars is likely to be, need not be big. In fact, because of the square cube law, landing a small probe is easier than a large one.

         Possibly we are talking about a cluster of 3 cubesats rather than just one. I don't know enough to have an educated opinion.

         But I do know that cubesats (40% of all the ones in the world have Glaswegian hardware) are being put in orbit now for under £100,000 and are a technology which is game changing for space development.

          Beagle III would be much more complicated than 1 communications cube in Earth orbit. But how much more. It looks to me like the cost would be likely to be several million £s which is less than small change to government.

           Less than we spend subsidising 1 single windmill. Or less than 1 metre of the new Forth Bridge is costing.

           Worth spending to answer arguably the ultimate question about life and the Universe? I would think Westminster, Holyrood, Tom Hunter and Bill Gates would fight for the opportunity to fund it.

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Independence "Debate" - Not About Nationalism But About Unlimited Promises Of Toys

    Last night attended the "Glasgow Skeptics - promoting science, critical thinking and freedom of expression" - a government sock puppet who were running a "debate" on independence. I have previously mentioned the "Skeptics" and their absolute objection to sceptical thinking and free debate over alleged catastrophic global warming. So their decision to give places to the 5 cartel parties and undeniably Fascist and racist Radical Independencers while excluding UKIP was expected. Such is normal of state funded puppets.

Speakers
Jackson Carlaw (Tory) Jackie Baillie (Labour & Willie Rennie (LibDim) for No and Patrick Harvie (Green), some woman (SNP) and the cofounder of Radical Independence (Fascist).
 
When I took my seat and not before I put on the UKIP rosette.

    Both the SNP and RI put gratuitous attacks on UKIP into their speeches. When the second did it I stood up and said “Mr Chair, I would like a ruling – is it proper that this is the second speaker to have made a gratuitous attack on UKIP when UKIP has been censored from the debate”. Well actually I only got the first few words before being drowned out. So I repeated and repeated and repeated and……. Eventually got the question out, at which time I was surrounded by bouncers, who explained that I would have to leave. I sat down and said you’ll have to carry me which they threatened to do but didn’t follow through. The chair obviously declined to rule on whether it was proper to use the venue to attack UKIP when UKIP had specifically been denied a chance to speak.

        In the QandA section I did get to speak – I pointed out that the Fascist (because that, and racist, is what RI had proven themselves to be when they attacked Farage) had denounced fuel poverty, but that none of the parties allowed to speak actually cared about fuel or any other sort of poverty. That the only way to end poverty is to increase national wealth and that while all of them knew how to do so – it was fairly easy and UKIP are full of policies saying how (which is true – cheap energy, save £170 bn out of the EU & cut parasitic government regulation). I then pointed out the incongruity of some Yes supporters decrying poverty when Patrick Harvie had said on TV that nobody should vote Yes in the expectation it will produce any growth in the foreseeable future.
 
Harvie said this is not exactly what he said – I said it was precisely what had said (& it was) but then went on to acknowledge that he was not a fan of growth and would be happy if we were poorer but fairer. To be fair to him he does come fairly close to saying what he means which puts him ahead of the rest, though “fair” is a very subjective word and I doubt if there are 2 people alive who would totally agree in what it means, which is why politicos use it.

     The only other one to say anything on my truthful charge that UKIP have the policies to end crerate wealth but none of them care was Willy Rennie. He denounced me for saying I want growth when I want to quit the EU. I put my hand up, twice, and loudly asked the chair if I would be allowed to answer the point but naturally wasn't. A voice for the audience said “No you won’t” & I replied “That was rather my point”.

     I was interested that 2 1/2 of the Yes speakers, and from the cheers almost all of this atypical audience, were resolutely opposed to nationalism (the 1/2 being the official SNP). This may not be entirely how the Yes campaign runs nationally but it is clear that the campaign has very little room for nationalists and patriots. It is entirely about various sorts of "socialist" promising each other that, come the revolution, there will be unlimited money to pay the unwaged, windmills, foreign aid, government employees, Gaelic programming, awareness raising activities, ensuring everybody working on Trident still gets paid etc.

     2 audience questions interesting more for the response than their originality.

     One man said how could we vote to stay in the union when we have the present electoral system, a position I have a lot of sympathy with. Carlaw, who answered it completely misunderstood the question, answering one about the English outvoting us. I am sure he was not just deliberately choosing to answer a different question but just didn’t get it. To be fair to Harvie again he acknowledged the probability that if we got separation the Scottish people will not use it to introduce all this unaffordable stuff. He is clearly intellectually head and shoulders above the kiddie "socialists" beside him, though that is not high praise.

      Another asked the No campaigners to say what vision they were offering. This has been asked regularly because they have been unable to answer it but the fact they have been unable to answer it shows how useless “better together” is. The answer is we’re living in it. A no vote means we can promise to keep the £ (OK the SNP promise it too but they can’t do so honestly); to keep Gretna free of border inspectors; to keep the BBC; common citizenship; the right to a referendum on EU membership; and the English subsidy of our windmills. That may not be the offer of the vision of Utopia the SNP offer bit it has the advantage of being real. Yet nobody on the No campaign has the gumption to say it.

       That was pretty much it. The audience was stacked with “socialist” evangelists and no doubt will have voted overwhelmingly for separation, as they did going in.

     I have written to Willie Rennie inviting him to debate either in person or online - see tomorrow.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, February 05, 2014

New Website - Letter on Dredging The Clyde

        I have just started a new blog  NEIL CRAIG for UKIP in NORTH GLASGOW which will generally be more advertising, Scottish/Glasgow/UKIP politics and less ranting than here. Still being developed.

       In the other hand being a lazy bugger I will be doing some cross posting.

      Such as this letter sent out to all and sundry today. Normally I have left such letters until published or collected a lot of them, to give the papers a free first use. However since they noticeably don't publish nearly as much stuff from me as they did when I started and was a less experienced & I believe knew less & was a LibDem I don't see that the courtesy is deserved.


Sir,
      Dredging of the Clyde was stopped in the 1980s. Since then there was serious flooding in Paisley exacerbated by the fact that drains backed up, being unable to flow out because of the silt build up. Scotstoun has been warned it faces flooding too.

      Over the last few days we have seen how the Environment Agency deliberately allowing the silting up of the Somerset Levels is destroying the land and may return it to the sea it used to be before Britain hired Dutch engineers, in the 17thC to reclaim it. One agency operative has been notoriously quoted as wanting to put "a limpet mine in each pumping station" to hasten the destruction.

     A few years ago there was serious flooding in Cockermouth which was immediately publicly blamed on "climate change" by believers. Strangely enough, whenever we get particularly cold weather the same people tell us "proves nothing, that is just weather" - such are the mysteries of modern science. However it has since been shown that the main cause was that environmentalists had ensured that the site, confluence of 2 major rivers, had silted up.

    I fear that if we do not learn form this lesson our own "environmentalists" who have tied us down with the most expensive and destructive Climate Change Act in the world, unanimously voted through by the 5 Holyrood parties, may ensure disaster on the Clyde.

    Dredging should be reinstated. If people in the 17thC could tame the waters and recover land I simply do not believe we cannot maintain the land now.

Neil Craig
Prospective UKIP candidate Glasgow North

Reference
Christophe Booker on the Levels being destroyed http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2547732/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Its-deluded-greens-whove-left-Somerset-neighbours-10ft-water.html
Cockermouth silting http://www.cockermouth.org.uk/floods2009.html
ending of Clyde dredging http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5319

Labels: , ,


Thursday, January 02, 2014

Big Engineering 58 - Mobile Cubesats

      Again - not in any way my idea but cubesats are devices 10cm (4") on a side designed to be released by up to thousands, in orbit. The basic point is that, over the decades, technology has improved so much (Moore's law) that capacity which once required tons of satellite can now be fitted in such cubes. That and a similar principle to the way shipping containers revolutionised shipping - prepacking thousands of items together massively reduces handling costs.

     There are also plans to produce even smaller cubes.

    Cubes are only this useful for handling data - moving man sized material is going to keep needing something approaching man size - but data is an awful lot of what we do.

     Then there was this on Next Big Future.

     A tiny sunlight and water powered rocket is being designed which will be able to fly a cubesat from Earth orbit to Mars or Europa, which also means the asteroids and anywhere in interesting bits of the solar system, for $1 million.

    That makes examination and therefore raising money for commercial development, very much a commercial rather than governmental project.



         Incidentally Scots, indeed largely Glasgow firms are in the forefront of the cubesat industry, with up to 40% of the world's cubesats being made or partly worked on here. Theoretically that is potentially comparable to the time at the beginning of the 20thC  when 90% of all the world's metal hulled shipping tonnage had been built on Britain and 90% on the Clyde. That was when such shipping was at the technological cutting edge.

Glasgow space links:
http://www.sdi.co.uk/sectors/aerospace-defence-marine/adm-sub-sectors/space/space-key-facts.aspx
and
http://www.sdi.co.uk/news/2012/06/adm-newsletter/scotland-space-industry.aspx
and
http://frontiersmagazine.org/scotlands-satellite-heading-for-lift-off/
and
 

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Glasgow Helicopter Crash - Did People Die Because They Weren't Rescued - Again


From Sky:

"John McGarrigle has been waiting since Friday for news of his father, also called John, who was inside the Clutha pub when the police helicopter crashed into it.

He told Sky News: "I'm extremely angry my dad is lying in there.

"I was told last night that (the building) would not be getting touched (and that) no bodies were being taken out.....
Helicopter crash
The wreckage of the helicopter has been lifted clear of the Clutha pub
"What about the dignity for the human beings underneath that police helicopter? If they've got one out, they can get the rest out."

Mark O'Prey was last seen in the Clutha bar on Friday night by a friend who went outside for a cigarette moments before the tragedy.

His worried family told Sky News they are frustrated at the inability to get information about their loved one.....
"Here we are two days later and he's still inside.
Ian O'Prey
Ian O'Prey says he is desperate for information on his missing son Mark
"I would hope he would do the same for me if I was lying in that pub. I'd like some answers, not (to be) fobbed off."

David Goodhew, of Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, said  ......"We have got to dig slowly. The building is in such an unstable condition."
-------------------------------------------------------------

      Has the delay in searching for survivors cost lives. Nobody can say for sure but it is certainly possible.

      Nor is this the first time. Alison Hume died from a survivable fall purely because the fire service not only refused to get her out but even orevented a civilian rescue - "‘Some people have said to me that if the same thing happened again, they wouldn’t even phone 999 – they would get a rope and do the rescue themselves".

      Some years ago I denounced this behaviour in a case even closer to this crash.

      In May 2004 the Stockline plastics factory blew up a few hundred yards in the other direction (busy neighbourhood) & again on seeing it I was surprised how slowly the work of searching for people know to be buried was going. ( bodies were recovered over the next few days & it was known that several of them were alive after the explosion because they called for help on their mobile phones. The search went slowly because the authorities were unwilling to risk killing people if the debris moved. Would more people have survived if the authorities had been willing to take a few more risks to save lives?

I don't know for sure but I do know it is a question that does not get asked & it should be.


       That explosion was a couple of hundred yards from where I live and I can confirm seeing the site and being horrified at the total lack of movement when there were known to be living people under the rubble.

        At the time I wrote to a number of newspapers & broadcasters but, the Scottish media being what it is, neither letters nor news on the subject was allowed. If it had been things might have improved.

       I will be sending a letter closely based on this. We will see if it is something the media allow this time.

Labels: , ,


Monday, November 18, 2013

Ultra Automated Transport Takes Another Step

    This is good news combining my previously expressed interest in automated rail, driverless cars & my rejected proposal that it would be better for the Scottish government to spend £20 million building an automated rail link to Glasgow airport than start a £300 million conventional rail project and then cancelling it for £40 million.

      The same company is now using the same equipment to provide driverless cars (on rail) to provide a public transport system in Milton Keynes  http://phys.org/news/2013-11-uk-town-deploy-driverless-pods.html

       This is my previous article on the subject. The Ultra system is also in use at Heathrow now. But not Glasgow.

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Morbid Obesity Costs Twice As Much As Trident

   James Dellingpole has a highly amusing post today about government waste  £5 billion a year:
    

In the 1980s, the Judge Dredd strip in 2000AD ran a series of stories about the League of Fatties – people so grotesquely obese that they could only waddle around with the help of a trundle wheel supporting their enormous bellies. Back then, in our innocence, we thought it was dystopian satire…
If you haven't yet read Max Pemberton's Spectator cover story Obesity Is Not A Disease I urge you to do so. It describes a social problem of quite grotesque, wobble-jowled, saggy-bottomed enormousness: the vast sums of money – £5 billion a year – being funnelled from our pockets in order to pay for the extra healthcare costs of the clinically obese.

And we're not just talking pleasingly rotund, or "carrying a little bit of weight girls", here.
Take the East Midlands Ambulance Service. It emerged this week that it has been picking up so many fat patients — weighing in excess of the 28-stone maximum — that it needs a new fleet. It has, hitherto, been struggling along with just one ambulance for fatties (a ‘bariatric’ vehicle), but now thinks all 272 of its ambulances need to be upgraded with double-wide stretchers for patients who (it says) can weigh in at 55 stone. The plan will cost £27 million.
.....Here's how that process of cause and effect should work with obesity: you eat too much, you get fat; your food bills rise to accommodate your expanding girth; so too does the cost of your health insurance, both to cover the extra cost of your "bariatric" specialist treatment and also because you are that much more likely than a thinner, fitter person to require medical care; also, people will hate sitting next to you on aeroplanes, only fellow fatties (or the odd thin person, maybe, with a bear fetish) will want to have sex with you, you will probably smell more and die younger. In a free country you will, of course, remain as free to get as fat as you like. But there will be consequences for your actions in the form of mild social opprobrium, increased financial penalties and so on. Thus, without any meddling or hectoring or needless expenditure from the Nanny State, fat people will be encouraged to get thinner because they will find it in their best interests to do so.

What our current socialised healthcare system does, unfortunately, is to remove this vital connection between cause and effect. Not only are the obese cushioned from the financial consequences of their wanton self-indulgence but they inhabit a culture so in thrall to the idea of victimhood, so fearful of "judgementalism" and so wary of causing offence that it doesn't even dare hint that there might be a problem with being fat.

This cannot end happily. It won't end happily. When future historians come to survey what it was we did wrong before the Great Collapse, one of the details that will tickle them to the point of incredulity is this: that with Britain's national debt fast approaching 100 per cent of GDP, and with the NHS approaching breaking point, it was yet considered good practice for the state to spend £5 billion a year it hadn't got – not to build a new airport or finance a nuclear power station but simply to enable millions of fat people to go on enjoying their apparently unalienable right to stuff their lardy faces at Greggs and McDonald's."

     The solution is obviously not eating. Somebody who is bedridden by being 55 stone is clearly being fed by somebody else.

     The libertarian answer would be to let them choose to give up or die and would work one way or another.

     The authoritarian one is to arrest the feeder for abuse. Perhaps also fitting them with an electronic collar that would give a small shock any time they swallowed more than a set amount. That would work & keep them alive.

     This is an example of how wealthy we are as a society & how when nothing else can harm us, we have become a self-harming society. This is a fact via Tim Worstall which I have waited for an excuse to use and this is certainly it:

      "In 1870 the daily wages of an unskilled worker in London would have bought him (not her: women were paid less) about 5,000 calories worth of human, not horse food: not oats (although Scotsmen would disagree) but bread--5,000 wheat calories, about 2½ times what you need to live (if you are willing to have your teeth fall out and your nutritionist glower at you). In 1800 the daily wages would have bought him about 3,500 calories, and in 1600 2,500 calories. Karl Marx in 1850 was dumbfounded at the pace of the economic transition he saw around him. That was the transition that carried wages from 3500 calories per day-equivalent in 1800 to 5000 in 1870. Continue that for another two seventy-year periods, and we would today be at 10,000 calories per unskilled worker in the North Atlantic today per day. Today the daily wages of an unskilled worker in London would buy him or her 2,400,000 wheat human-food--potato--calories. Not 10,000. 2,400,000. That is the most important fact to grasp about the world economy of 1870. The economy then belonged, even for the richest countries, much more to its past of the Middle Ages than to its future of--well, of you reading this."

     By that standard, and it is a good one, we are all 1,200 times better off than in 1870.

     Nobody in the Middle Ages could afford to be 55 stones. Another, even more demeaning effect is that nobody but a king could afford to kidnap and feed 3 girls without anybody noticing as American bus drivers now can.

     I maintain that a wealthy society is far better than a poor one but no silver lining is without a wisp of cloud.

     But on silver linings I commented on Dellors saying what we could do with the money wasted on this:

     " Brilliant article James.
Much needed.
Imagine what we could do with £5bn a year

Build 8 x 1 GW nuclear plants each year for free,
Cut Corporation Tax by 40%
Cut Income Tax by 1.5p
Put it into a Space X-Prize Foundation and get space development 12 times what NASA gets.
Build 5 OTEC powered floating equatorial islands annually, which would each produce enough algae to feed 10 million hungry people annually.
Build HS2 in 16 years or preferably a Hyperloop in 2.
More than match all the money spent on research on stopping/reversing aging worldwide.
At £20K each, build 250,000 new modular houses annually.
A fair trial and hanging for 50,000 government parasites, war criminals, child abusing "professional carers" and pensioner freezers annually."

Labels: , , ,


Wednesday, October 16, 2013

New Technology Links

Even marginal success in research delaying aging is a better investment than cancer, heart disease research

An analysis, from top scientists at USC, Harvard University, Columbia University, the University of Illinois at Chicago and other institutions, assumes research investment would conservatively lead to a 1.25 percent reduction in the likelihood of age-related diseases. In contrast to treatments for fatal diseases, slowing aging would have no health returns initially, but would have significant benefits over the long term. With even modest gains in our scientific understanding of how to slow the aging process, an additional 5 percent of adults over the age of 65 would be healthy rather than disabled every year from 2030 to 2060
-------------------------------------------------------
China, Russia, India, S Korea all building reactors at about 1/3rd the European cost.

China's nuclear reactors tend to cost from $1500 to $2500 per KW. This is a far lower cost than in Europe or the US. Controlled cost is a good reason that China is building about 28 out of the 69 nuclear reactors under construction in the world. China, Russia, India and South Korea are where 50 out of the 69 world nuclear reactors are being built. They all have construction costs under control and tend to be 2 to 3 times cheaper than in Europe or the USA.

    Since the RAE figures show British nuclear is about 40% of the cost of the average of the basket we use (probably less as prices rise) combined with it being possible to drop the prices by 2/3rds means the cost of our electricity bills not only could be reduced by about 90% but that this is happening elsewhere in the world.

   If reactors were allowed to be mass produced the cost would certainly fall furt
her - mass production always means that.
-----------------------------------------------------
   Jerry Pournelle publishes my opinion in why Parliament was right not to support bombing Syria

(I have already published the wording as an unpublished letter)
-------------------------------------------------------
Cubesats in Glasgow and
Glasgow University's space probe
------------------------------------------------------
"If my three kids ask about science … I cannot honestly praise British science and suggest they seek a career there. As a science graduate, I wou
ld like to be able to say “yes a science degree is a good thing”. But the reality is that academic science is so politically motivated and so appalling at delivering anything useful to those doing degrees or to society in general … that whilst I would prefer a scientifically literate society, I cannot in all honesty recommend British science to anyone."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Alliance newsletter and Scottish Branch set up
--------------------------------------------------------
Best energy ideas for tomorrow
--------------------------------------------------------
Genes changing but not through direct inheritance?

A scientist has tested the genetic effect of swapping baby sweet tempered European honeybees with aggressive African killer bees. (H/T Chris Phoenix)

They took 250 of the youngest bees from each hive, and painted marks on the bees’ tiny backs. Then they switched each set of newborns into the hive of the other subspecies.

He didn’t expect the bees’ actual DNA to change: Random mutations aside, genes generally don’t change during an organism’s lifetime. Rather, he suspected the bees’ genes would behave differently in their new homes—wildly differently.....

 When Alaux looked at the gene-expression profiles of the bees exposed again and again to alarm pheromone, he and Robinson saw why: With repeated alarms, hundreds of genes—genes that previous studies had associated with aggression—grew progressively busier. The rise in gene expression neatly matched the rise in the aggressiveness of the bees’ response to threats.
---------------------------------------------------

 

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, October 09, 2013

Prestwick Airport Purchase

       The Scottish government are purchasing Prestwick Airport, essentially because the current owner has had it up for sale for a year, it is losing £2 million a year and because they aren't carrying out routine maintenance, it is going downhill.

"The Scottish government has confirmed that it plans to take Glasgow Prestwick Airport into public ownership.

The step was confirmed in a statement by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament.

The airport, which was put up for sale last March by New Zealand-based owners Infratil, has been running annual losses of £2m.

Ryanair, which operates 27 routes from Prestwick, has welcomed the government takeover.

Ministers will now enter detailed negotiations with Infratil on the terms of sale.

Ms Sturgeon told MSPs some private investors had expressed an interest in the airport but it had become clear none was able to commit to buying Prestwick on a timescale that was acceptable to Infratil.

She said the Infratil board had been considering its options, one of which was to seek commercial discussions with a view to public sector ownership and the other being to close the airport."

    Unmentioned by anybody is how much we are going to pay for it. The local MP says it should be for nothing but the owner, a year ago, said they had a valuation "which now values Prestwick at about £14.3m and Kent at £7.6m" but clearly the market disagrees and with still declining sales and infrastructure I think the MP's assessment must be closer.

    In theory I should be in favour of letting the market work and having it close if that is what it says. After all Glasgow already has an airport and how many cities have more than one. On the other hand its failure seems to be largely because of the government caused economic collapse since 2008 plus, previous to that, government introducing all sorts of airport taxes to stop the common people flying.

"Prestwick Airport saw a drop of nearly 20% in passenger numbers in July 2011, compared with the same month last year.

The Ayrshire airport's owners said there were 37,800 fewer passengers during the crucial first month of the school summer holidays.

New Zealand-based Infratil said the July passenger numbers fell from 194,500 in 2010 to 156,700 last year.

In recent years, the number of passengers at Prestwick topped 230,000 during the month in both 2007 and 2008."

    So in theory the SNP should be enthusiastic for closing it.

    In practice there is good evidence that government investment in transport infrastructure is the best, perhaps the only, place where government investment in tangibles benefits society.

    On balance taking it over and maintaining it is probably worthwhile. However I do not think Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP are the sort of innovative entrepreneurial types likely to turn it round.

    So they should be willing to auction it off as quickly as possible to anybody willing to undertake to invest in it. That will lose the government money but less than they would by keeping funding it over the long term and more importantly is much more likely to turn it into a real success.

    A couple of other things I have previously suggested could help:

1 - The Scottish government have long had a proposal to build an automated link to Paisley station for £20 million. One advantage this has is that Paisley station is on the same line as Prestwick. Which means that the 2 could easily together operate as a hub.

2 - Back in 2001 I made a proposal at the LibDem conference that the government could take on 100% of the running costs of Highland and Island airports. The cost of this would not have been much more than the subsidy at the time and as it turned out, considerably less than a mire restricted and bureaucratic system that the LD minister ultimately put in place. The advantage of this is that it would have meant zero landing charges at these airports (landing charges per passenger being higher than Heathrow because there are fewer passengers). Thus costs fares would have been drastically reduced and usage massively increased. The natural mainland end of most of these flights would, assuming Paisley International Airport (ok Glasgow #1) is close to capacity, would be Prestwick.

     Not magic solutions but a help.

     However there must be serious local circumstances which we aren't being told about because though passenger numbers have fallen severely general UK passenger numbers have gone up 10% since 2008 in the UK - and by about 1/3rd worldwide. Though, to be fair most of the EU would be happy to reach 10%.

     Which suggests to me that the ultimate reason for the failure of Prestwick must not so much the relative success of the Luddites running Britain but the even more extreme anti-technology policies of the Scottish government and the SNP. Funny old world isn't it.

Labels: , ,


Monday, September 16, 2013

Ed Davey Conference Speech Fisked

          For a bit of fun - the great man's comments are in bold and the minister's in normal typeface:


Conference, Liberal Democrats entered this Coalition – put aside party politics – for a very good reason. Our country was in a mess. And not any old mess. It wasn’t some sort of short term financial hiccup. No. The morning after polls closed, we faced the most difficult decision in our party’s history. To govern in coalition in the most difficult economic circumstances any British Government had faced in modern times. ACTUALLY TRUE

And I am proud, immensely proud, that Nick Clegg, our party and you – we didn’t duck that decision. Clearing up the mess is taking time. It was always going to. It was never going to be easy. Not least because clearing up the mess means building a new economy. And Liberal Democrats – from banking to energy, we are rebuilding Britain’s economy with new foundations.

Our Deputy Prime Minister - delivering on fairer income tax; Vince Cable - driving a new industrial strategy; and my job - fighting for greener growth. NO FIGHTING FOR "GREENERY" IN PREFERENCE TO GROWTH ....

So this afternoon I want to move on to the green growth opportunity. For it’s much, much bigger than many realise. And bigger than the sceptics want people to know about. Partly, we have  Labour to thank  – because Labour’s record on energy was so poor. Ageing energy infrastructure, increasing energy imports, and rocketing energy bills. IT WAS POOR, BUT THE COALITION HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED BUILDING THE NEW POWER GENERATORS AND THE ENERGY BILLS ARE EVEN HIGHER NOW, SO EVEN BY HIS OWN STANDARD HE FAILS.

Even when Labour began to wake up to their mistakes – and with all-party support passed the Climate Change Act – they still lacked ambition for green growth. But Liberal Democrats, we have always known the potential of a green economy for Britain. ALL PARTY SUPPORT FOR THE CCA IS TRUE, AND SHAMEFUL

So I have no time for the sceptics who say we can’t afford green investment. So it’s good that the Government’s growth push is on building – like railways, like housing. But the green energy opportunity is even greater. For the rest of this decade we need to spend more on investment in our power grid than we do on roads and rail combined. A LIE SINCE HE KNOWS WE COULD BUILD NUCLEAR REACTORS AT £600-£800 MILLION A POP. WE DO NOT "NEED" TO SPEND IT WASTEFULLY ON NON-VIABLE "RENEWABLES"

Replacing our ageing power stations closing over the next decade will attract £110bn of investment. Energy is half, yes half, of all Britain’s planned infrastructure investment. And since this summer’s Olympics was so fabulous – let me get in on the act. Britain’s green growth opportunity is like building 20 Olympic Stadiums every year until 2020. So that’s why British industry wants us to crack on with our energy reforms – the foundation of Britain’s future low carbon economy. Industry knows this will stimulate the investment the economy needs. Our reforms will unlock billions of private investment in energy produced here in the UK: wind, marine, solar hydro, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. BY "OUR REFORMS" HE MEANS TAXPAYER SUBSIDY WILL "UNLOCK" PEOPLE AFTER IT - THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER ANY OF IT IS USEFUL, HE IS SIMPLY SAYING THAT OFFER SUBSIDY AND YOU WILL GET TAKERS

Be clear: our aim is nothing les, nothing less, than the world’s first ever low carbon electricity market. Moving Britain from dirty to clean electricity. OF COURSE IF "LOW CARBON" RATHER THAN PARASITISM  WERE THE OBJECTIVE SINCE THE LOWEST CARBON SYSTEM IS NUCLEAR, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD BE AFTER 

Conference, to deny our green energy revolution is good for growth, is as perverse as denying climate change. Now a few of you may be worried this might break our fiscal rules, So let me calm you. Private investors will fund the vast bulk of what we need. Danny need not worry. Unlike many other projects, green growth need not mean red ink. The energy projects that I want to drive are ready now, they are what the Treasury calls shovel ready. LETS BE "AS PERVERSE AS DENYING" CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING (ONLY HOCKEYSTICKISTS, LIKE DAVEY. EVER DENIED CLIMATE CHANGES. TO CLAIM THAT SUBSIDISING WINDMILLERY "NEED NOT MEAN RED INK" IS CLEARLY NOT SOMETHING ANYBODY WITH ANY SLIGHTEST TRACE OF INTEGRITY, OR INDEED SENSE, COULD SAY SINCE SUBSIDY FREE SUBSIDY IS IMPOSSIBLE.

 We can win investment now. Create jobs now. Get green growth now. And not just in London and the South East. Where jobs are really needed. In the last year alone, companies in the North East have invested £700m and created more than 2000 jobs in the green economy. In Scotland, almost £3bn, creating 5000 jobs. BUT COSTING £5,000 PER PERSON ANNUALLY I.E. £310 BILLION, "ALMOST £3 BN" IS NOT A GOOD PAYBACK

Green growth is the fastest around. And at the heart of rebalancing the British economy. How can the critics ignore this? Why won’t they champion this British growth opportunity? How can they let ideology blind them to what is happening right before their eyes? My message to them is simple: no turning back from tackling climate change; no turning back green jobs; no turning back from green growth. THIS IS SIMPLY A DIRECT AND DELIBERATE LIE. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT EVERY "GREEN" JOB CREATED IS AT THE EXPENSE OF 3.7 JOBS IN THE REAL ECONOMY SO DAVEY IS LITERALLY PROMISING "NO TURNING BACK FROM DELIBERATE CREATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND RECESSION

Conference – the Liberal Democrats are not for turning. Conference, we are putting in place the policies on low carbon energy that will attract the billions of private investment Britain needs. But just like the rest of the global economy, investors crave certainty. Stability. The confidence that Governments will stick to their word. That’s why the Climate Change Act was so important. That’s why there’s a strong case for a carbon limit for Britain’s energy grid for 2030 as I hope you will back tomorrow. Energy is always a long term investment. So if we are to create greater investor confidence in Britain’s low carbon energy future, a long-term target is best. IF WE ARE TO FULLY SATISFY THE SUBSIDY JUNKIES WE MUST OFFER THEM MORE. IN FACT SUBSIDY JUNKIES ARE NEVER SATISFIED

When I was asked to look after the country’s energy and climate change future, some people called me “a safe pair of hands”. When it comes to gas and electricity, I think that’s a good place to start. Not least because some people want me to play it anything but safe. They want me to risk Britain’s energy policy on one solution – one technology. Bet the economy on nuclear. Gamble UK plc only on renewables. Play Russian roulette with shale gas. Well, these safe hands won’t take those kind of risks with jobs and Britain’s growth. AND HE CERTAINLY WON'T "GAMBLE" ON FREE MARKET LIBERALISM AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ENGINEERS MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT HIM

And just as we must not play fast and loose with people’s jobs, we must  not take risks with their pockets and purses. Look at how rocketing world oil and gas prices have led to rocketing energy bills for millions. Green growth must be affordable. And it can be. We will protect energy consumers from the higher prices of climate threatening fossil fuels. Our vision of a green economy can lead to lower energy bills not just in the future – but now. That means putting a cushion between the bills people actually pay and world energy prices. And Conference, the answers aren’t new – but red and blue never makes green. WHAT AN OBSCENE CORRUPT LYING FASCIST THIEF HE IS. PROMISING TO "NOT TAKE RISKS" WITH ENERGY PRICES WHEN IN FACT HE AND EVERYBODY IN THAT HALL KNOWS HE IS NOT MERELY RISKING, BUT DELIBERATELY INCREASING FUEL POVERTY

Saving energy, energy competition will be how we get people’s energy bills down. And we have the new ideas to make these work much harder for people than ever before. Let’s start with energy saving. My vision of the future is one in which houses are so well insulated they cost no more to run in winter than they do in summer. Think about what that would mean: no more arguments about the kids putting on an extra jumper; no more shivering when you make the morning cup of tea; no more anxious calculations at the end of the month when the bills stack up. HIS VISION OF THE FUTURE IS ONE WHERE PARLIAMENT REPEALS THE LAWS OF ENERGY

That’s why the Green Deal is so different. Different to anything that has gone before. First, everyone is included. Every home in your community – every house, every flat – all can benefit from the Green Deal. Indeed, every business can benefit too. Past schemes were full of red tape. If you didn't qualify for this benefit you weren’t eligible. If you didn't want the work done in a certain way you couldn’t have it done at all. Well, we won’t save energy and keep people warm by wrapping them up in in red tape. And the Green Deal is creating a new market – a competitive market. Open to all, not just the big energy firms. With local builders and plumbers, DIY chains, boiler firms. 60,000 jobs. The energy of liberal free enterprise unleashed to save the energy leaking from our homes. EVERYONE IS INCLUDED IN THAT EVERYONE'S POCKET IS ROBBED BY THESE THIEVES TO PAY THEIR PALS. THE PROMISE OF "60,000 JOBS" IS ACTUALLY A PROMISE TO DESTROY 162,000 NET SINCE EACH JOB "CREATED" BY SUBSIDY DESTROYS 3.7 IN THE REAL ECONOMY

And we need more enterprise and competition in Britain’s energy markets too. The old way – of door-step selling and door-step misselling – didn’t work – and I’m glad to see it gone. We can’t – like Labour – just urge people to switch and leave the rest to chance. That hasn’t worked. Switching rates are down. Only the well-heeled internet savvy now get the best deals. But we need to give people value for money on their gas and electricity. THE CLAIM THAT THE ENERGY COMPANIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENERGY PRICES IS. LIKE THE CLAIM THAT THE BANKS CAUSED THE RECESSION, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T THERE, IS  PRECISELY AS CORRUPT AS THAT OF THE GERMAN NATIONALISTS AFTTER WW1 WHO SAID THE JEWS AND SOCIALISTS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSING THE WAR. BY DEFINITIONM THEN, THE SCUM WHO SAY IT ARE AS CORRUPT AND DISHONEST AS THE NAZIS WHO SAID THE ORIGINAL LIE

In July, we launched ‘Cornwall Together’ – it has brought together the council, the NHS, Unison, voluntary groups and the world famous Eden Project. And St Austell’s Brewery. That really got me interested. Cornwall Together will help Cornish people buy energy together – in a collective switch. To get 20,000 Cornish residents to sign up, aiming to save them an average of nearly £200 a year. So millions of pounds stay in the Cornish economy. That matters. That cash boosts local economic growth and cuts fuel poverty.

Our policy is to encourage exactly such schemes. So today I am announcing a £5m competition and it’s open to local authorities and community groups across England. We want councils and communities to come up with their own schemes. And we will make only one main rule. Winning schemes must include the fuel poor. And Liberal Democrats, armed with this new opportunity to push energy competition, we must campaign to help people cut their energy bills – campaign in our cities, towns and villages – and work with anyone who will work with us. Cooperating for for cheaper, energy. And I want to go further. I want nothing short of a community energy revolution. STEALING £310 BILLION FROM THE PEOPLE HE NOW WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER £5 MILLION ON AN ADVERTISING STUNT

Let’s start by buying energy together. But let’s also save it and generate it together. Just look at Germany to see what is possible. 100 councils aiming to be 100% renewable. Nearly 600 energy co-operatives. So next spring I bring forward with a new community energy strategy – so people can and will see the benefits of a green economy for them. But I will do more for families struggling with bills. Now. SIMPLY ANOTHER PROMISE OF MORE BILLIONS IN SUBSIDY TO FRIENDS...

Take tax. We campaigned and have won a great change to build a fairer new economy. Taking millions out of tax and incentivising work with our £10,000 income tax-free allowance. But we also campaigned for a green tax switch. To incentivise energy saving.  Now we need renewed vigour for that smarter tax. I’ll be working with Don Foster to look at council tax discounts for energy efficiency to see if they will encourage people to sign up to the Green Deal. The Budget announced a review of vehicle excise duty, as car tax to you and I. I am interested in an idea that would push the car industry to make more fuel efficient cars, to save motorists money and cut carbon. And to cut motoring costs even more for the greener car drivers. After all, we have a commitment on environmental taxes. There is a coalition commitment. Not more tax, smarter tax. We need to make sure that happens SINCE THIS CLEGG HAS MADE A SPECIFIC PROMISE OF MORE TAX UNDER THE PSEUDO-LIBERALS

Liberal Democrats, we can build a new economy from the mess we inherited. From banking reform to employee share ownership and the Green Investment Bank. From new energy infrastructure to railways and electric cars. From the Green Deal to clever green tax and buying energy together.  Green growth will mean more jobs and lower bills. And don’t let anyone tell you different. HE KNOWS "GREEN JOBS" IS A LIE AND THAT HE IS PROMISING TO DESTROY 3.7 REAL JOBS FOR EVERY SUBSIDY DEPENDENT ONE "CREATED"

My vision, our vision is of a new green economy. Of course there will be some with outdated views who don’t want to make the change. Don’t want Britain to move forward. But their ideas got us into this economic and environmental mess in the first place. Our vision of a new green economy has never been needed more than now – from reskilling young people for tomorrow’s low carbon world, to investing in the science to drive innovating firms. That is the new economy liberal democrats want to build.

I joined the party when we were just 4% in the opinion polls because this party, even then, in a green future. They scoffed at us then, but we were right. And it’s the same people trying to sabotage that future now. Our campaigns changed the political agenda so much that we can now become a world green leader. That’s how far Britain has come, that’s how far we have come so let us say loud and clear, on our green future there will be no turning back SIMPLY BOASTING OF BEING A THIEVING FASCIST PARASITE




 

Labels: , ,


Sunday, August 11, 2013

World's Successful Cities

   John Redwood has posted on this. His bias (or perhaps the negative of my bias) is towards London which is, by most standards, doing well. My negative being that it is a capital city so it is no surprise that it does better than its hinterland.

"The world’s economic advance is increasingly spearheaded by the great cities of the world. Europe only has two of them, London and Paris (and there is Moscow). The USA has several, whilst rising Asia is pitting  its traditionally successful city states against a new tide of fast growing cities in India, China and elsewhere.

If we look at the OECD list of richest regions in the world as measured by GDP per head, it is led by London (Inner west) at a mighty $152,116 a head. The District of Columbia around  Washington USA comes second, at $131,343. Paris is the best of the continental cities, at a very successful $76,146 for the city as a whole. Edinburgh appears high up with $49,970, parts of the UK Home counties do well and Inner London east is there at $47,470.

...... To succeed a world city needs to encompass a population of  around 10 million in the city proper and close surroundings. It needs to be very open to talent and money from outside. It needs to have premium properties available for foreigners to buy. It needs a  great ambience, plenty of good high specification modern commercial space, and preferably some iconic older buildings and symbols of the city. It has to have great food, great drama.

My comment:

"Unfortunately of the cities you single out all of them – London, Paris, Washington & Edinburgh are capital cities, ie magnets to top civil servants and the leaders of large companies that want to schmooze them. Washington in particular has no raison d’etre outwith government. This is not a model that has general applications.

From this list of the top 25 I have extracted those that are not capitals of hinterlands
http://www.aluxurytravelblog.com/2013/05/15/the-wealthiest-cities-in-the-world/
(Singapore is capital only of itself)

2. New York – 389,000
5. Frankfurt – 217,000
7. Osaka – 190,000
8. Hong Kong – 187,000
9. Shanghai – 166,000
10. Singapore – 157,000
12. Munich – 130,000
14. Los Angeles – 126,000
15. Toronto – 118,000
16. Chicago – 107,000
17. Sydney – 104,000
18. Houston – 103,000

What do they mostly have in common – fairly entrepreneurial, good rule of law mostly ports, perhaps tending towards good weather but not overwhelmingly so, several but not all have famous opera houses or museums, ethnic peace though not homogeneity, all cities people have heard of, cleanliness.

If anybody can think of other common factors I would be interested to hear of them.

When looking to see how a city can be successful it is worth removing the most common feature (being a capital) to see what common features remain.

     This is not yet developing a formula for making a city/region/Scotland particularly successful but it does point to some factors that would help. I'm not sure I agree with John's assessment that a 10 million population is required, because I am aiming at a region that satisfies its population's needs not necessarily the needs of would be immigrants, but again this may be that my prejudices are different from his.

     Overall free marketism, which includes being free to build; peace; quality entertainment; clean streets; and some iconic architecture. We could do that.

Labels: , ,


Monday, July 08, 2013

UK Space Conference in Glasgow

      This is being held next week. Tuesday 16th and Wednesday 17th.

The 2013 UK Space Conference, which takes place in July over two days, will focus on realising the UK’s ambitions in space – including making a global impact with science and research, contributing to the UK’s economic growth by developing new commercial applications and businesses and developing the interactions between these activities. Book now

The conference programme will be configured to:
  • facilitate interactions between communities from academia, the space industry, end-users, financiers and government
  • provide a platform for reporting on the Innovation and Growth Strategy Re-stack and on implementation of the actions arising from it.
  • attract international delegates and speakers wishing to find out more about developments in space policy and activities in the UK
The programme is expected to include:
  • special feature sessions
  • VIP presentations and plenary sessions focusing on:
    • exploration, inspiration and challenges
    • growing our global business
    • the IGS Re-stack and beyond
  • Parallel sessions focusing on:
    • science and technology
    • growth and finance
    • supply and demand
  • Conference dinner and Sir Arthur Clarke Awards
Contributions will be made from across the sector including academia, industry and government.
-------------------------------------------

   At £95 per I can't justify it, or the time, but I will be interested in seeing what, if anything, happens.

  One thing that has happened is this Herald article.
 

Labels:


Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Bitcoins

Yesterday I went to the "Glasgow Skeptics" lecture on Bitcoins.

I have previously lamented the "Skeptics" absolute refusal to even consider scepticism on global warming but this was rather different.

Bitcoins are a computer generated online currency. New Bitcoins get created at a falling rate and will do so until there are 20 million of them. Currently there are 11 million with a total value of just over $1.1 billion. It is my opinion that they cannot currently be forged and that it will take several decades of the operation of Moore's law before it becomes theoretically possible and even then it will not be practical.

This is the strength of Bitcoins - they are a fiat currency backed by nothing but popular belief. However, unlike other fiat currencies they cannot be inflated away by government's "quantitative easing.". Since their value depends entirely on belief and not subject to the normal rule of economics, that incre4ased demand will increase supply, they are entirely vulnerable to speculative swings (this has already happened at least once).

Their success shows

(1) that there is immense demand for a currency that is not going to be inflated away by governments (or typically in the "skeptics" opinion, by banks)

(2) since this system of exchange can run automatically with virtually no running costs, banks charging for debit card transactions is pretty much pure profit. The extent of these charges is concealed by them being paid by merchants but any economist agrees that, in a competitive market, it doesn't matter whether transaction costs are paid by the buyer, in which case they are passed on, or by the seller. In either case they are eventually paid by the seller, but it is always politically more stealthy to make them seller charges. In Britain (& I assume in other countries where the banking industry has been able to lobby, it is illegal to charge extra for credit cards sales which means prices are marginally higher for everybody.

However it is clear from the Bitcoin system that the entire banking with credit cards system is money for old rope and will, in due course, be swept away by something of which I suspect Bitcoin is a harbinger. But possibly it will be Bitcoin itself - in which case, bearing in mind that world GDP is $70 trillion and there are 20 million, if they cornered a significant part of the market the stable value would rise to about $1 million each they can be bought and sold in infinitely divisible fractions).

Personally I think Bitcoins would be an excellent investment, despite the fact that they have no physical reality, for somebody with a few thousand they fancy risking. In effect what is happening is that early adopters are gaining the profits which, with credit cards, go to banks, but here go into fuelling demand and therefore the value of Bitcoins. The lecturer insisted that Bitcoins are mildly deflationary, in that they should continue to represent a fixed quantity of global wealth, but in fact they represent more a fixed amount of the wealth of users so that if usage increases manyfold so must their value.

Warning: If governments decide to crush Bitcoin - for example the US government making "possession" of them illegal as it did with gold in the 1930s - it would greatly reduce their usage and thus their market price and anybody who was in it for short term speculation would lose. Ah well. Even so I do not think anything short of the world's governments, perhaps through the G20, attacking it, would finish it off.

In questions I mentioned the African experience, mentioned by libertarian MP Douglas Carswell ----- of trading by mobile phones in which the trade is carried out in mobile phone credits. This is similar in effect though it is not a fiat currency, so long as they are backed by the phone company's promise to redeem them on demand, i.e. so long as the phone company is solvent.

 
It was interesting that the "Skeptics" gave space to this libertarian free market idea. Though it is not marketed as such. A number of people in the audience recognised how this undercuts big government's "democratic" right to inflate the currency, tax massively and restrict trade in such things as drugs and were suitably opposed. Perhaps there are quite a lot of people who, once they get beyond the political labels turn out to be old fashioned small government liberals after all

Also interesting that the lecturer Matthew Campbell-Sturgess is a young SNP councillor. Compare and contrast with the SNP MEP candidate Christopher Stevens who, at a different meeting, explained that the major division in British politics is not over EU membership or "independence" within it but over whether the future economy should consist of more government inspectors and regimenters, as he and the SNP wished and why they supported the EU, or fewer and more wealth creators as "right wing" libertarians like UKIP want. Clearly the division does not merely run through British society but through the somewhat schizophrenic SNP too.
Bitcoins

Labels: , ,


Thursday, March 21, 2013

Martin Rees - Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow

   Last night I had the honour of being in the audience of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow when Martin Rees the Astronomer Royal, Master of Trinity College & Lord spoke.

    The lecture ranged from Man's future in space, to the possibilities of life elsewhere in the universe to the age, origin, size, future of the universe and to the multiverse. I was impressed not so much on what he said, which I generally agreed with, but of his willingness to say how much we simply don't know.

Some remarks:

"Space flight exposes the difference between what could be done and what has been" - we could be settling Mars now if the political will had been there - supersonic transport is another example.

This picture

  It is Saturn eclipsing the Sun.

   With each advance in robotics the technical argument for human beings in space grows weaker. However the philosophical one remains overwhelming.

    "It is better to read first rate science fiction than 2nd rate science"

    There are arguments over the theories that life must be common or that we really are alone in the universe. We do not yet have enough information to hold a sensible view, but it could be that we are alone as intelligent life.

   Perhaps the difficult step is not from non-life but to intelligence. Intelligence may be an evolutionary dead end.

  We are currently about 40% of the way through the life of the Earth. Whatever exists by then may be as far removed from us as we are from microbes, perhaps moreso since we can now take charge of our own evolution.

  "Not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity" quoting Darwin

  "99.9% of the population have one thing in common - they live their lives on Earth. The rest are astronomers."

  "Fred Hoyle my predecessor at Cambridge"

  "We are the ashes of long dead stars" (ie carbon, oxygen and the other complex atoms were all formed in stars)

   We now know that most stars have planets.

   Some of these planets have been found by private citizens using data online.

   We will probably send fleets of robotic fabricators ahead before we travel to other star systems.


   Beyond the range of what our telescopes can see (ie more than 13 billion light years away) there will be billions of galaxies.

   There may be a multiverse of other Big Bang bubbles with their own universes.

============================

  I asked a question - You mentioned that the European Extremely Large Telescope [(real name :-) ] with a 30 metre mirror will be able to see planets in nearby star systems, if only as dots. This is about the maximum that can work on Earth because of the atmosphere and more importantly because of the gravity field. Like you I believe humanity will have a spacegoing civilisation, though it may well be Chinese. Are there any limits to the possible size of telescopes we will be able to make when we have such a civilisation.

   "The E-ELT uses magnetism to hold the mirror stable. Gravity much more than the atmosphere is the limiting factor. I think we will build such telescopes in orbit rather than on the Moon and I know of no limits to their potential size."

    I said I looked forward to seeing the day when we would have telescopes a kilometre across and could see extrasolar planets in detail and he said we would need longevity for that. I hope he is wrong on the last, but that entirely depends on the politicians allowing us to start doing what is technologically possible. But he seemed unfazed - this guy thinks in billions of years.

 

Labels: , ,


Saturday, January 19, 2013

George Square Demolition

.“A generation which ignores history has no past and no future.” .......Robert Heinlein

Probably the thing which most stirs people over the proposed George Square demolition is the obvious glee of our councillors to get rid of the statues of the "irrelevent" Victorian heroes their predecessors revered.

  It seems likely that most of them don't even know who many of
Sir Walter Scott
Thomas Graham, Chemist
Thomas Campbell
Lord Clyde
Sir John Moore
Robert Burns
James Watt
Queen Victoria
Prince Albert
Robert Peel
William Ewart Gladstone   were, except that they were not parasitic Labour apparatchiks who took hundreds of millions of £s from us fraudulently, like Dewar, whose statue will continue to brood over the serfs.
   This is how George Square was intended to look.
   That has class.

    Now I am not normally an opponent of change, for example I went on the record to support the proposal to build a glass bridge between the towers of the Kelvin Art gallery (#7 here) - something which the Council decided would be insufficiently Victorian looking.

    However not only would that have looked completely spectacular, particularly for those crossing it, it would have been something original, at least in the UK, classy and pushing the technological envelope.

None of which can be said for any of the official choices here. I think this one, #5, is the best of the 6 but it is pretty dreadful - even with all the faked perspective. The only new idea there is closing the end roads, which would gardly reduce congestion.

This is more like the "iconic footbidge" nonsense.

Entry Five
       Does anybody doubt that if that is put in place we will not acknowledging how much it looks like 1,000 other places worldwide.

       Remember the 1960s DIY programme which showed you how to turn ann old fashioned Victorian door into a modern vision of loveliness by nailing a couple of pieces of chipboard on them to obscure the detail.

       If we want technical innovation go for what is being called Option 7 - put it back the way it used to be without all the current orange tarmac - and then add some grass reinforcing matting - something not available to the Victorians but which would protect the grass, without being intrusive, and let people make even better use of it. After all if Glasgow is "the Dear Green Place" would greenery not be a good idea.

      And that would cost thousands (at least if put out to commercial tender rather than done in house) instead of the £15 million (and counting) the Council promise for their scheme.

Labels: , ,


Monday, September 17, 2012

The True SNP Policy - They Would Far Rather Have Recession Than Free Enterprise & They Want To Populate The Highlands With Massive 3rd World Immigration

When I invited all 129 MSPs to speak in debate in support of their belief in catastrophic global warming and Scotland's Climate Change Act, the world's most draconian, intended to cost trillions of pounds over the next 3 generations, most of them refused even to reply. Most that did made a simple refusal.

    Green leader, Patrick Harvie, simply confirmed that his party would never, under any circumstances, engage in debate with UKIP and then got offencive.

   One other, John Mason, SNP MSP for Glasgow Shettleson, did reply & we engaged in correspondence. Since he didn't make it off the record and was obviously well aware of my status as a member of UKIP I am free to reproduce both sides of it.

      I am not particularly knocking Mr Mason, who is clearly much more interested in ideas than most of his "totalitarian" party. However I found his ignorance of basic economics, science and even the political philosophies he believes in to not reflect well on the "intellectual wilderness of Scottish politics".

      One effect of the "totalitarian" nature of the SNP is that we can be sure that anything one of them says closely represents the common view. In those terms we can take his belief that the main, perhaps only, way out of recession his party approves of is unlimited immigration and repopulation, particularly of the Highlands with millions of immigrants, presumably from the 3rd world, to be their real policy.

    I think this lunatic, since such immigration would  produce per capita  negative growth, but also because the free market policies we propose would clearly provide real growth. It is also something which no true Scots patriot of the last 7 centuries would be less than horrified about.

    The world population is 7 billion people. About 80% of them live in countries where working hard they could not expect to earn as much as they would on the dole in Scotland. If I were one of them I would want to come here too, but I am not. I am a patriot of my own country and people and will not sell them out the way the SNP intend to.

      I also note his definition of "right wing" as anybody who thinks the free market has a significant place in the economy or anybody who "doesn't like foreigners" when "doesn't like" is defined as not wanting unlimited immigration or not wanting to be run by Brussels. I suspect, outside the Holyrood cartel, 90%+ of Scottish people are "right wing" in those terms.

     I admit some of what I said was intemperate but, for fairness have kept it in.  Note also that on a number of points he has made no attempt to provide factual support or sometimes even to answer the point at all and I think it reasonable to assume he cannot.

     I also find his contention that if only we had an oil fund like Norway we could blow 10s of billions of it on whatever & thus get the economy permanently growing.Of course such spending, which is essentially what we are now doing but he wants more, merely provides a little short term spending to mask the underlying recessionary trend. Real growth comes from increasing the means of production which he is, if anything, opposed to. It is noticeable that Norway is not in recession, still has this fund because it has not blown it on short term spending and incidentally is not an enthusiastic member of the EU, has been the template for the Scottish Tunnel Project, so not remotely like what the SNP intend.
======================================
Dear Mr Craig

Thanks for your email.

I am a bit puzzled if it is aimed at me personally or at all MSPs as it starts off 'Dear MSP' which does seem a bit impersonal.

I guess people might turn down your invitation for a number of reasons including its being hosted by UKIP. People might have more faith in the fairness of the debate if it was hosted by a neutral body.

Even if there was no climate change, we would still need to cut energy and other resource usage. So I do feel the wording of your motion is a bit unfortunate and misses the main point.

Sincerely

John Mason
The invitation went to all MSPs & indeed to all the parties. This might seem a little of a wide spread if it were not for the fact that not one of them has yet confirmed that they are willing to publicly speak in support of the Act unanimously passed to produce the most expensive climate change legislation in the world.

If I had thought many of you were not perfectly aware that this entire scare story is a deliberate fraud to rob this and succeeding generations of trillions of pounds I would have been unwise to ask so many because obviously I would have had to fend off the multiple acceptances.

Clearly I have, if anything, underestimated the total understanding by every last one of you that this is a deliberate fraud that cannot survive impartial debate.

Or are you willing to debate?

As regards your objection to UKIP as not being neutral I will be interested to seeing the numerous links you can produce, if you are in any way honest on this, in which you have publicly denounced MSPs for appearing on the BBC, an organisation which admits to making no attempt at neutrality over this totalitarian fraud.

Neil Craig

If your case were correct you would have nothing to fear from testing it. This is known
as the scientific method in science or liberal democracy in politics.

You clearly feel debate with anybody you disagree with should not be allowed. This is known as fascism.
How fortunate for you that it is a belief obviously shared by all MSPs in your LabNatConDemGreen cartel and our state controlled media.

Should you ever, under any circumstances, abjure fascism the invitation to participate in democracy stands.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

I am puzzled about the link with fascism. I understood that was more likely for right wing parties who oppose immigration. Is that not more UKIP's position?

I am asked to attend and take part in a variety of meetings. A number of factors have to be considered before accepting, including time and location, my personal expertise on the subject, and the likely fairness of the hosting. I am afraid your meeting did not pass all these tests.

Regards

John

I suggest you look up the history of fascism - it was founded by a socialist nationalist by the name of Mussolini whose basic idea was that dissent, countervailing opinions etc should be suppressed on the grounds that everything works better when there is an enforced consensus.

Which obviously is pretty much the positon of the cartel parties and the BBC.
It was nazism that made racism a fundamental part of nationalism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "right wing" - if you are sure perhaps you could define it?

Neil Craig

By right wing I would include both economic pro-market tendencies and anti-foreigner attitudes, both of which I believe UKIP, BNP, NF, etc. support.

I certainly do not agree that countervailing opinions should be suppressed. If you want a debate, why not get a neutral organisation to host it? Or are you afraid of that? Most party politicians are unlikely to take part in a debate hosted by another party… that would seem a pretty obvious trap not to fall into.

Cheers
John

Actually the BNP aren't particularly pro-market - they are very much old Labour on things like tariffs. UKIP is not anti-foreigner - our party, unlike most in Holyrood, including some in the SNP, has no record of supporting illegal wars and much worse against foreigners.

That leaves only anybody who wants less than 3/4s of Britain's/Scotland's national wealth to be either legislated out of existence or spent by the government. In that way I would have to be classified as "right wing". Which pretty much leaves only Scotland, North Korea, the old USSR, China under Mao and; wartime Nazi Germany and admittedly wartime Britain as "left wing".

I take it SNP policy is pretty much promotion of unlimited immigration - to, as Brecht said, "elect a new people".

I note that you have not answered the question about when you denounced political allies who appear on the BBC state propagandist on this subject despite the fact it makes no attempt at impartiality. I can confirm that the BBC which does not allow formal free debate is particularly unwilling to do so on this subject.

I would point out to you that when the terms "right" and "left" were first applied to politics those who wanted a free market were radical left wing and those who wanted government controls to keep entrepreneurs down were the right wing aristocratic party. Such use of political labels to mean the opposite of their original meaning is unfortunately common in politics - as someone who calls himself a nationalist and wants his country embedded in an EU super-state you will appreciate this.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

On the BBC I do think they are biased against Scottish Independence having been described as the glue that holds Britain together. However, I do think programmes like Good Morning Scotland are reasonably fair. I would be happier appearing in a debate hosted by the BBC than one hosted by another political party.

On immigration we have had a problem in Scotland with a stable or falling population over a number of years. This makes it difficult to grow the economy or improve services. Large parts of Scotland are also seriously under-populated. Therefore, either we need to increase the population ourselves or to encourage immigration.

I trust that clarifies my views on these points.

Regards
John

On alleged catastrophic warming the BBC make no bones about being biased and censoring dissent. Indeed they hired one of their own recently to write a report about how bias was OK, which rather puts it beyond dispute. The BBC do not do formal debate. Sometimes and I think this is what you are referring to, they do interviews with a number of carefully selected people who follow the BBC line on all the main points, but this is not debate

If the BBC ever do actually do a genuine debate on warming in which dissent is actually allowed I will be certain to acknowledge the fact but don't hold your breath.

We do not have a stagnant economy because we have a declining population - we have a declining population because we have a stagnant economy. Check out Ireland to which followed which. Of course we could have a fast growing economy any time the SNP decided to stop preventing it. You know that perfectly well. I would challenge you to debate that but I know you would refuse.


If you were concerned about highland and island depopulation you would have been enthusiastic about the Scottish Tunnel Project but neither you nor the large majority of MSPs were remotely so. As one would expect since you are deliberately maintaining recession.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

I do not think anyone is deliberately maintaining recession. What would the point in that be? However, there is disagreement as to how recession can be ended. This is made more difficult as the UK acted irresponsibly in the good times and did not save up an oil fund as Norway did. The UK has been such a failure economically that we would surely be better off independent.

I have never been encouraged to follow a BBC line when I have taken part in TV and radio programmes they host. Most of the time both sides get the chance to put their case, although I am no fan of the BBC.
I would stick to my position that the stagnant economy is partly caused by a stagnant population. More people means more work can be done, more taxes paid, better public services, and so on.

Cheers for now
John

I don't think there is much factual debate about how to have a successful economy, any more than there is factual debate about creationism V evolution.

Economic Freedom + Cheap Energy = Prosperity

You did not dispute that South Korea is richer than North or give any other examples of centralised socialism matching free enterprise & the evidence seems indisputable

http://www.slideshare.net/indicusanalytics/habits-of-highly-effective-countries-presentation

And the SNP is clearly aware of the second part "In modern times the main driver of economic growth has been, and continues to be, energy" - Jim Mather, SNP minister

As you have made quite clear you are personally so ideologically committed to "leftism" that you would rather not have growth, without it and it is unarguable that the SNP policy is to maximise the cost and minimise the availability of energy.

I know that a couple of days ago Alex Salmond said that every SNP MSP was spending every hour trying to end the recession but that is clearly merely the highest standard of honesty to which he aspires & not to be taken as truthful. Or do you actually deny that the formula above is essentially true or that you and your party are absolutely opposed to both "right wing" economic freedom and cheap energy?

Compare and contrast with Chairman Deng's remark that "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white but whether it catches mice" but then the Chinese communist party is clearly a Nationalist patriotic organisation that puts improving people's lives ahead of Marxist/Leninist ideology, quite unlike the LabNatConDemGreen cartel.

You must know perfectly well that we could be out of recession quickly and in due course at least matching the non-EU world average growth rate of 6% if we had patriotic government committed to doing so. After all what inherent law of nature is there that says we cannot match the world average?

Regarding the BBC I can confirm that UKIP too does not come under any pressure to conform to the BBC line, simply because we are deliberately censored by them, in the totalitarian cause. Perhaps you could give an example of "Most of the time both sides get the chance to put their case" when you were part of one side and there was a genuine discussion (I don't ask for even a true debate) on the subject of global warming, or free enterprise, or cheap energy or cutting state totalitarianism, or unlimited immigration or anything else of significance, in which supporters of economic, & other, freedom were allowed to speak freely.

Neil Craig

Thanks Neil

Firstly, I do not agree there is anything we can do to get out of recession quickly. If we had savings (like Norway) we would be in a stronger position but debt is a real restriction on individuals, countries, and other organisations.

On growth, yes we do want that, and it will be helped by a growing population and commodity and energy prices not rising too fast. That is why we need to invest now in renewable energy so that when the oil runs out we have an alternative ready. The alternative of using the oil and gas and not preparing for the future would be a disaster waiting to happen.

I would see myself as being left of centre, i.e. wanting a fairer distribution of income and wealth, but I certainly do want to see growth. There are many people struggling in my constituency so we need to help them either by creating new and better jobs or by redistributing wealthier people’s income and wealth.
I hope that clarifies my thinking.

Regards
John

If we cannot get out of recession why can the non-EU world manage an average of 6% growth? What is inherently different about Scotland and the UK that means we cannot even hope to approach far below average? Apart from the politicians.

If there is no reason apart from politicians ideologically committed to opposition to economic freedom in preference to ending recession, then that must be the cause. I note that you have not attempted to support the claim that central planning is as efficient as market freedom by providing any examples, counter to so many showing it isn't..

The "oil running out" is yet another of the eco scare stories which have been disproven by reality, repeatedly. Oil supplies are increasing not running out. In any case if you believed that you would have to enthusiastically support nuclear.

Like you I want people to pay a fair share of taxes. Where I disagree with you & the BBC, is in what constitutes "fair". Personally I think it is fair that those individuals who work hard &/or create wealth are entitled to keep the majority of it, which does not happen currently under our various layers of tax. I also think it indisputable that, so long as human beings are not automata, the incentive of getting more money is bound to encourage people to work hard & create wealth. If you were to accept that you would have to accept that the SNP claim to be doing your best to achieve growth is false.

I find it disgraceful that you use your poorest constituents as moral human shields when you have shown that you cannot factually dispute well that they are "struggling" purely because of poverty enforced by our ideologically driven technophobic politicians.

Neil Craig

Labels: , ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.