Siting of panels for solar water heating

On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:

No need. Given the opportunity to compare, customers tend to be preety good at identifying what they want.
But this doesn't mean that any of the offerings they might have will be any better than the service they have now, or that the aggregate environmental impact will be less, or that the costs will be lower.

If what they have now is on offer as one of the available services, those wishing to stay with it can do so.
In the meantime, other suppliers will be offering different services at different prices. Some will be lower and some higher.

Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service Maybe.
Certainly. Some customers like to buy on price.
Yes - though is there any guarantee they'll be offered lower prices ?

The market will decide that.

Do people even know what they are paying now ? Do you know what you are paying ?

Irrelevant. What is important is transparency of cost and choice of what to buy.

and compete that way or a better service at a higher price and compete that way. Maybe. :)
Certainly. Some customers like to buy on service.
Some aspects of it anyway.

I happen to think that service is extremely important and value it above price. Others may take the opposite view or rate them more equally.
All can be accomodated.

Supermarkets manage it very well by having typically 4 brand threads: - Cheap own brand - Mainstream own brand - Vendor brand - Premium brand People buy what they like and/or what they can afford. Well yes, but there is a difference in that dust carts take up more than shelf space ! To me this all sounds like more carts out collecting on the roads, and more aggregate environmental impact. How will people buy into lower footprint solutions ?
People will buy into what they want to buy.
If it's on offer.

If there is a market, it will be on offer.

If you would like to buy a low footprint solution, you would be at liberty to do so.
But if in aggregate, all of the solutions have a bigger environmental footprint than the present single provider solution, I won't be able to go back to the old solution will I ?

That depends on what you mean by "environmental foot print"

In essence you seem to want me to bet the future, at least of waste collection, on your own political ideology, and I decline to do so, because you have no detailed plan, can't guarantee that there will be any reduction in aggregate environmental impact, and can't promise that any aspect of the service that I value will be improved.

That isn't what I have said at all. I haven't talked about betting anything or about political ideology. I haven't offered detailed plans or set out to do so regardless of how many times you have suggested that I do so.
All that I have said is that there should be a choice of supplier and of service offering for waste collection and that I do not think that a one size fits all monopoly is the right model.
It is very telling that you seem to believe that a monopolistic model delivered through the local authority with increasing onus on the customer to do particular things in a particular way with legal compulsion if the customer dares to disagree is the way forward.
I think that not only is that a very dangerous state of affairs, but it illustrates a considerable insecurity about the true benefits of the various schemes being forced upon customers.

Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ?

I think that what you may have got clear in your mind is what you would like to believe I have said.
However, that bears no relation to what actually was said.

On 2006-11-28 23:27:57 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 21:36:30 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Newspapers but not bundles of newspapers
:) Just put them all in. I do now. Into what ? You mean you are recycling something ?
I don't buy a lot of printed newspapers because it is better not to create the need for them in the first place.
Agreed.
(Some) plastic bottles but not the tops This is a good question.
Plastics but not styrofoam or carrier bags How hard can it be ? It probably isn't. I don't want to waste time on looking up lists of what can and can't go where. Well - I'm sure you'd soon remember them, bright lad like you !
I don't want to waste bandwidth and storage on stuff like this when it can be dealt with differently.
The question should perhaps be, can it dealt with better ?

Absolutely. I would like to buy (or rather continue to buy) a service where the supplier deals with this stuff. I don't want to spend my time on it.
If you would like to buy something which involves you in sorting through every item and putting into different places and tracking where it goes, be my guest. You could set up in business, and I would happily be your first customer.

Aluminium cans but not foil Just give them the lot unless they are contaminated with something nasty. Not according to the guidelines of my LA. Indeed. Personally I'm happy to apply common sense rather than hide behind their excessive caution.
Me too, which is why it all goes in the same sacks.
Yes, but the residual waste sacks, or the recycling sacks ?

All the sacks are the same as far as I am concerned.

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore said: No need. Given the opportunity to compare, customers tend to be preety good at identifying what they want. But this doesn't mean that any of the offerings they might have will be any better than the service they have now, or that the aggregate environmental impact will be less, or that the costs will be lower.
If what they have now is on offer as one of the available services, those wishing to stay with it can do so.

But splitting delivery of the same service (shifting a mass of waste) is achieved with more competing vehicles, where is the environmental gain ?

In the meantime, other suppliers will be offering different services at different prices. Some will be lower and some higher.

And all increase the aggregate environmental footprint of the exercise.

Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service Maybe. Certainly. Some customers like to buy on price. Yes - though is there any guarantee they'll be offered lower prices ?
The market will decide that.

So that's a no then.

Do people even know what they are paying now ? Do you know what you are paying ?
Irrelevant. What is important is transparency of cost and choice of what to buy.

If people, (you included), aren't interested enough to know what they are paying now, they aren't generally going to look at it even if it is transparent.

and compete that way or a better service at a higher price and compete that way. Maybe. :) Certainly. Some customers like to buy on service. Some aspects of it anyway.
I happen to think that service is extremely important and value it above price. Others may take the opposite view or rate them more equally.
All can be accomodated.

No. All can't. Only the price / service spectrum that you choose to identify. But you've already blown it on environmental impact. You can't accommodate me, and quite possible many others by taking an existing solution that is adequate, and replacing it with a range of choices that are worse.

Supermarkets manage it very well by having typically 4 brand threads: - Cheap own brand - Mainstream own brand - Vendor brand - Premium brand People buy what they like and/or what they can afford. Well yes, but there is a difference in that dust carts take up more than shelf space ! To me this all sounds like more carts out collecting on the roads, and more aggregate environmental impact. How will people buy into lower footprint solutions ? People will buy into what they want to buy. If it's on offer.
If there is a market, it will be on offer.

Apparently the 'as low as it is now' environmental impact for the delivery of the entire service is not on offer - from you.

If you would like to buy a low footprint solution, you would be at liberty to do so. But if in aggregate, all of the solutions have a bigger environmental footprint than the present single provider solution, I won't be able to go back to the old solution will I ?
That depends on what you mean by "environmental foot print"

Look it up.

In essence you seem to want me to bet the future, at least of waste collection, on your own political ideology, and I decline to do so, because you have no detailed plan, can't guarantee that there will be any reduction in aggregate environmental impact, and can't promise that any aspect of the service that I value will be improved.
That isn't what I have said at all. I haven't talked about betting anything or about political ideology. I haven't offered detailed plans or set out to do so regardless of how many times you have suggested that I do so.
All that I have said is that there should be a choice of supplier and of service offering for waste collection and that I do not think that a one size fits all monopoly is the right model.
It is very telling that you seem to believe that a monopolistic model delivered through the local authority with increasing onus on the customer to do particular things in a particular way with legal compulsion if the customer dares to disagree is the way forward.
I think that not only is that a very dangerous state of affairs, but it illustrates a considerable insecurity about the true benefits of the various schemes being forced upon customers.

It illustrates a significant concern that we do a lot of environmental damage that we can't individually see or measure.
As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.

Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ?
I think that what you may have got clear in your mind is what you would like to believe I have said.
However, that bears no relation to what actually was said.

Specifically please ?
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-28 16:50:49 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 00:50:00 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 12:17:47 +0000, David Hansen SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> said:
Bottle tops sometimes have a 2 on them. Sometimes, sometimes not. So? If they have a two on them they go in with the other plastics for recycling, if they don't they go in the residual waste bin. Hardly difficult. The issue is not whether or not it is difficult, but customer choice, payment made and service (not) supplied. Your view. A better question might be 'What is it reasonable to ask of the people who create the waste ?' That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"
:) Well - that's your view.
It's called the view of the market.

I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always involve imposing a market on them.

Some people may not voice it in these terms, but this is the essence of a commercial transaction.

It could be represented as that, but it abandons the notion of government acting in the collective interest, and ignores any notion of social transaction.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes

On 2006-11-28 23:27:57 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 21:36:30 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
Newspapers but not bundles of newspapers
:) Just put them all in. I do now. Into what ? You mean you are recycling something ? I don't buy a lot of printed newspapers because it is better not to create the need for them in the first place. Agreed.
(Some) plastic bottles but not the tops This is a good question.
Plastics but not styrofoam or carrier bags How hard can it be ? It probably isn't. I don't want to waste time on looking up lists of what can and can't go where. Well - I'm sure you'd soon remember them, bright lad like you ! I don't want to waste bandwidth and storage on stuff like this when it can be dealt with differently. The question should perhaps be, can it dealt with better ?
Absolutely. I would like to buy (or rather continue to buy) a service where the supplier deals with this stuff. I don't want to spend my time on it.
If you would like to buy something which involves you in sorting through every item and putting into different places and tracking where it goes, be my guest. You could set up in business, and I would happily be your first customer.

That doesn't deal with the notion that sorting at source is the 'least resource' way of getting things sorted. If I provide you with the service, I introduce overheads like getting your rubbish and me in the same place.

Aluminium cans but not foil Just give them the lot unless they are contaminated with something nasty. Not according to the guidelines of my LA. Indeed. Personally I'm happy to apply common sense rather than hide behind their excessive caution. Me too, which is why it all goes in the same sacks. Yes, but the residual waste sacks, or the recycling sacks ?
All the sacks are the same as far as I am concerned.

Then concerned is the one thing you are not. At least not beyond a rather self centred agenda.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore

On 2006-11-29 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore said: No need. Given the opportunity to compare, customers tend to be preety good at identifying what they want. But this doesn't mean that any of the offerings they might have will be any better than the service they have now, or that the aggregate environmental impact will be less, or that the costs will be lower.
If what they have now is on offer as one of the available services, those wishing to stay with it can do so.
But splitting delivery of the same service (shifting a mass of waste) is achieved with more competing vehicles, where is the environmental gain ?

The service isn't the same for each. Who said anything about the total number of vehicles necessarily increasing? Who said that they would be the same size?

In the meantime, other suppliers will be offering different services at different prices. Some will be lower and some higher.
And all increase the aggregate environmental footprint of the exercise.

That is a nebulous term.

Contractors compete for the customers' business. They can offer a low priced service Maybe. Certainly. Some customers like to buy on price. Yes - though is there any guarantee they'll be offered lower prices ?
The market will decide that.
So that's a no then.

Given that the LAs would not be in the food chain, one substantial cost element is removed.
As far as pricing is concerned, the market will decide. One element of the market is price competition.
Since you already identified that current costs of waste collection are not given to the public, there is no direct comparison to make.

Do people even know what they are paying now ? Do you know what you are paying ?
Irrelevant. What is important is transparency of cost and choice of what to buy.
If people, (you included), aren't interested enough to know what they are paying now, they aren't generally going to look at it even if it is transparent.

I happen to think that service is extremely important and value it above price. Others may take the opposite view or rate them more equally.
All can be accomodated.
No. All can't. Only the price / service spectrum that you choose to identify. But you've already blown it on environmental impact.

I haven't "blown" anything. "Environmental impact" is a nebulous term that is open to individual interpretation.

You can't accommodate me, and quite possible many others by taking an existing solution that is adequate, and replacing it with a range of choices that are worse.

You would be at liberty to choose a supplier who operates in the same way as your existing one.
The existing solution is only acceptable to the extent that individuals are not required to take any actions beyond putting all of their rubbish in one set of bags weekly. If individuals choose to separate their rubbish into different bags, that is a matter for them as far as I am concerned. To that extent, a range of choices exist today.
However, they are all from one supplier and that is not a healthy situation.

Supermarkets manage it very well by having typically 4 brand threads: - Cheap own brand - Mainstream own brand - Vendor brand - Premium brand People buy what they like and/or what they can afford. Well yes, but there is a difference in that dust carts take up more than shelf space ! To me this all sounds like more carts out collecting on the roads, and more aggregate environmental impact. How will people buy into lower footprint solutions ? People will buy into what they want to buy. If it's on offer.
If there is a market, it will be on offer.
Apparently the 'as low as it is now' environmental impact for the delivery of the entire service is not on offer - from you.

I'm not offering anything. I already told you that I have no interest in collecting rubbish. I also told you that the term "environmental impact" is whatever the individual decides it is.
For example, I happen to think that solar panels on roofs and electricity generating windmills in the countryside have a huge environmental impact visually. Others may actually like them.

If you would like to buy a low footprint solution, you would be at liberty to do so. But if in aggregate, all of the solutions have a bigger environmental footprint than the present single provider solution, I won't be able to go back to the old solution will I ?
That depends on what you mean by "environmental foot print"
Look it up.

No need. The definition is individual.

In essence you seem to want me to bet the future, at least of waste collection, on your own political ideology, and I decline to do so, because you have no detailed plan, can't guarantee that there will be any reduction in aggregate environmental impact, and can't promise that any aspect of the service that I value will be improved.
That isn't what I have said at all. I haven't talked about betting anything or about political ideology. I haven't offered detailed plans or set out to do so regardless of how many times you have suggested that I do so.
All that I have said is that there should be a choice of supplier and of service offering for waste collection and that I do not think that a one size fits all monopoly is the right model.
It is very telling that you seem to believe that a monopolistic model delivered through the local authority with increasing onus on the customer to do particular things in a particular way with legal compulsion if the customer dares to disagree is the way forward.
I think that not only is that a very dangerous state of affairs, but it illustrates a considerable insecurity about the true benefits of the various schemes being forced upon customers.
It illustrates a significant concern that we do a lot of environmental damage that we can't individually see or measure.

That may be the case or it may not. If one takes that position, taken to its logical inclusion, one would do nothing that might have some impact or another. If you want to do a set of things that convince you that you are doing something good about that, then that's your choice, provided that you don't inflict them on others.
I prefer to see demonstrable evidence that something is being damaged and secondly that the proposed solutions, if any, do address it and not make something else, including the economic situation, worse.

As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.

Sorry, but I don't buy any of these points. Unless the sustainable ways proposed fit with the market environment, they won't happen to a sufficient extent to be worthwhile. For example, the United States is not signing up for Kyoto because they believe that to do so would damage their economy. The Chinese are not stopping building power stations, presumably for similar reasons.
The environmental lobby needs to go away and learn some economic realities and then come with solutions that will allow sustainable economies. Those will get the support that actually matters. Otherwise all of this is just pissing in the wind.

Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ?
I think that what you may have got clear in your mind is what you would like to believe I have said.
However, that bears no relation to what actually was said.
Specifically please ?

Already covered in detail.

On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"
:) Well - that's your view.
It's called the view of the market.
I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always involve imposing a market on them.

So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by where they choose to spend their money.

Some people may not voice it in these terms, but this is the essence of a commercial transaction.
It could be represented as that, but it abandons the notion of government acting in the collective interest, and ignores any notion of social transaction.

Governments acting in the collective interest is one of the biggest lies of history and could be a fourth in the series "The cheque's in the post". Governments act in self perpetration and little more.
Social transaction - if there is such a thing, which I doubt - is not relevant to a deal being made for the collection of rubbish from my perspective.
If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it. Quite what that would be - who knows.?

On 2006-11-29 01:17:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
Absolutely. I would like to buy (or rather continue to buy) a service where the supplier deals with this stuff. I don't want to spend my time on it.
If you would like to buy something which involves you in sorting through every item and putting into different places and tracking where it goes, be my guest. You could set up in business, and I would happily be your first customer.
That doesn't deal with the notion that sorting at source is the 'least resource' way of getting things sorted.

Then you would be welcome to visit and sort through my dustbin each week.

If I provide you with the service, I introduce overheads like getting your rubbish and me in the same place.

You could walk or use your bike.

Aluminium cans but not foil Just give them the lot unless they are contaminated with something nasty. Not according to the guidelines of my LA. Indeed. Personally I'm happy to apply common sense rather than hide behind their excessive caution. Me too, which is why it all goes in the same sacks. Yes, but the residual waste sacks, or the recycling sacks ?
All the sacks are the same as far as I am concerned.
Then concerned is the one thing you are not. At least not beyond a rather self centred agenda.

I already explained to you that I am quite happy for separation of rubbish to take place, although I am far from convinced of the need and value for all of the different types being done. I am even willing to pay for that to happen - as I already do. I am not willing to spend my time sorting through all kinds of different plastics, metals, paper and all the rest of it.
I object to being told that there is only one way that all of this can possibly happen and that I shouldn't have a choice of supplier and the ability to agree my own commercial arrangement with them. I think that both notions are bogus. If something relies on only being effective if there is no choice and a specific procedure has to be followed, it is highly questionable and in my view a very dangerous road to be traveling down.
In answer to your other point... no I don'f think that that is a self centred position to take at all; rather the boot is on the other foot.

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-29 00:25:37 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-28 23:12:38 +0000, John Beardmore said:
If what they have now is on offer as one of the available services, those wishing to stay with it can do so.
But splitting delivery of the same service (shifting a mass of waste) is achieved with more competing vehicles, where is the environmental gain ?

Several companies will have opportunities to find and implement environmental gains, and this will be one of the points of competition for business. One only need look at existing freeish markets to see that.
2ndly, you seem to assume there will be multiple vehicles consuming multiple times the energy. There are a few things wrong with this view.
1. Private companies are much more likely to have the number of staff on wagons needed, and no more. This cuts energy use per ton of rubbish collected. Why leaner staff? Because the most successful competitors win. Why less energy? You've got 2 peoples lives to pay for, with all thiere energy consumption, not 3. Why excess staff? Because managers wish to advance up the chain by showing how many employees they have managed and thus can manage. Also because there is no incentive for efficiency.
all this money & energy is explained in the thread you didnt read http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6888
2. If say 2 companies are collecting in an area, they will be using smaller vehicles and/or less vehicles. Smaller vehicle means less fuel use. They will also spend less time each in the vicinity. One can not at all assume this means more energy use.
3. If for whatever reason single vehicle only collection turns out to be a better bet, a lot of areas will pick single vehicle collection. Minority operators in that area will have higher prices and not get as much custom, and soon pull out of those places.
4. Finally competition and improving efficiency isnt in anyones interest with the present system, because no-one inside the system will profit from it. There is no incentive to develop or take any financial risk, because the only posible outcomes are either no consequence or a blot on ones record. In a free market, theres a lot of money to be made by new developments in efficiency, hence theres plenty of motivation for them.
Lets take a hypothetical example. Imagine someone decided energy use could be cut by fitting a high wire along the street, and residents would clip their rubbish bags to it, and these would slide down the wire by gravity into a skip at the bottom of the road, which would be emptied whenever it became full. The skip is fitted wit a sensor to detect fullness. The advantages are 1. single skip collection instead of door to door hand haulage of each individual bag 2. Rubbish collection intervals perfectly match need, the skip is collected when full due to sensor & transmitter in the skip. So no rubbish overflow, no rubbish sitting on the street, and no overfrequent collections. 3. Collection frequency changes to suit real-time needs, maintaining max collection efficiency at all times.
Now, today there is no reason to try implementing this. In a free market there is, if you can run this scheme, with its lower costs, at the same customer price (customers buying on its benefits) you make a pile of profit. This is motivtion to invest and take the risk.
When entrepreneurs take risks like this, some work out, some dont. The ones that do become common practice, and the marketplace improves year on year. That means better availability of goods & services, better quality, and less energy consumption per item.
There is little motivation for this with LAs, and progress is at a snail's pace. If the LAs had a monopoly on computers we'd still be using the 286.

I prefer to see demonstrable evidence that something is being damaged and secondly that the proposed solutions, if any, do address it and not make something else, including the economic situation, worse.

And it is very hard indeed to conclude that choice of rubbish collection has much to do with either CO2 emission or anything else ecological.

As a result, if we want to start living in a [more] sustainable way quickly, we need to put good environmental practice ahead of market fashions unless there is a compelling case that the market driven, short termist, 'money talks' solution can better deliver the environmental improvements required.

of course it does. But you'd need to understand the money-energy connection to see that.
A free market does not guarantee solutions, no system does, but it makes it possible for people that come up with solutions to offer them, plus it gives them an incentive to do so. Neither of those exist in the present system.
NT

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-29 00:33:29 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes

That question would be "Which services would you like, for how long are you willing to commit to a deal and is price X acceptable?"
:) Well - that's your view.
It's called the view of the market.
I'd rather the views of the consumer be heard. That doesn't always involve imposing a market on them.
So would I. The most effective way for that to be measured is by where they choose to spend their money.

In my view its not just hearing but acting on that counts. Are LAs acting on the variable collection frequency wishes of its customers? Nope.

Some people may not voice it in these terms, but this is the essence of a commercial transaction.
It could be represented as that, but it abandons the notion of government acting in the collective interest, and ignores any notion of social transaction.

I dont see what more the govt can do to a free rubbish collection market to improve the collective interest. If they think of anything they'll suggest it to try to get votes. Preventing legitimate business activity as happens today doesnt look much like in the peoples interest.
The commercial transaction does not ignore social transaction imho. With BT you get courteous service, with NTL you sometimes get rude idiots - you the customer consider the social transaction as one part of the whole deal. Some choose ntl, some bt.

Social transaction - if there is such a thing, which I doubt - is not relevant to a deal being made for the collection of rubbish from my perspective.
If you would like to introduce a social transaction element into your agreement, then hopefully you can find a supplier to include it. Quite what that would be - who knows.?

Maybe uniforms, courtesy, and perhaps wilingness to collect rubbish from on the premises. Old fashioned service.
NT

"John Beardmore" wrote in message

Now we've got that clear, would you mind standing at our next local council elections so I can not vote for you please ?
He doesn't seem to have anything better to do ...

Owain wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
The question is whether it's one of the types of plastic that is currently recycled in a particular area. Fine. So if the local authority wants to differentiate over this issue, it can get it's employees sifting through these bottle.
I don't see why they can't put people on 'community service' doing this sort of thing.
Owain

Maybe because there are far more useful things to have convicts doing than this. Labour is worth money.
If recycling of sorted goods is going to work, companies buying the materials need to either: - sort them, at their own cost, - or accept payments from customers willing to pay for their rubbish to be sorted (this happens in the commercial/industrial garbage business) - or accept ready sorted garbage from those customers wiling to spend their valuable time sifting their garbage.
At present the nation is expected to put a sizeable amount of hours each week into rubbish sorting at home, for free, when the companies that get the sorted goods should be responsible for this. If it really were a good value thing to do with ones time, this would work fine economically. The truth is it doesnt, it doesnt even begin to. Which means rubbish sorting is a very poor value way to spend ones time and labour.
This has a direct negative environmental impact, as those hours could be spent doing something genuinely useful, some of which things would inlude the things you want to see happen, such as installation of insulation, solar hw, working in socially positive jobs and so on.
Theres more could be said about all this, but I've got to go. Much to your relief :)
NT

John Beardmore wrote:

On the other hand, I guess somebody who listens to his own rhetoric rather than the experts in the field may be short of a number of clues.

Being an expert in a field and claiming to be an expert in a field are 2 different things. In some fields the general level of expertise is truly excellent, and in some its largely clueless, with most fields lying between those 2.
NT

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:52:25 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore wrote this:-

I did notice a certain amount of fly tipping of old furniture in the Wicklow mountains over the summer.

In the UK there are charges for uplifts of such things in many areas. These charges have been in place for a number of years and I haven't noticed a rise in them being dumped somewhere.
There is also the question of whether the actions of criminals should be bowed to or stronger action taken. Drink driving is an example of something where the actions of criminals were once tolerated, but that view is changed. Hopefully the same is currently happening with criminals who break motor vehicle speed limits. In these and many other cases criminals whine about how oppressed they are.
-- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-11-27 22:40:25 +0000, John Beardmore said: In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-11-27 01:32:59 +0000, John Beardmore said:
Which is very wrong. There is no other transaction where the supplier takes money up front, doesn't tell the customer what he will get for it and then expects the customer to be grateful that he got anything.

Oddly, there is. mail order junk companies often offer mystery bundles. You pay, you dont know what youre going to get. If people didnt buy them they wouldnt waste time offering them. I cant imagine why anyone would buy such a thing but people do.

Imagine what peoples' reaction would be if that happened in a shop. They wouldn't go there again.

Lucky dips remain as popular as ever. Ie not very but some do go for them. In fact lucky dip is a standard method of supply in the used clothing industry.

Yet they seem to think that it's perfectly OK when the state is doing it because it's "free" I worry about the level of IQ of some people if they can't see past that one.

It seems many dont

Yes - but as we've said, this goes way beyond waste, and for that matter, way beyond state provision. Look at the way Microsoft used bundling against its competitors.
That's one of the risks of the market.

Maybe its one of the benefits of the market. Look what was in use before windows, it was dos, cpm, and several other incompatible OSes, all with very limited abilities. The fact is most poeple buy windows, they choose it. Windows has also been good for linux in that it has motivated the linux community to greatly improve the usability of linux distros.
The illegal activity and monopolistic practices are theoretically something the law needs to deal with, the trouble is its such a cash cow for the US they dont want to open up the market. The US is keen on anticompetitive practices in the market, despite all the hype.

There will always be a vociferous few, but where as I've met lots of people that want LAs to do better, you are the first one I've met who wants them out of the loop except in a licensing and policing role like they are already.

That shows just how politically clueless our population has become.

The important thing is tht the customer receives the service that he is paying for.
:) No - that's only AN important thing. There are others.

Does that mean you would like to be able to decide what others get instead of them deciding? If you can morally justify that, its exactly the same justification for them deciding what you get, despite what you contracted for. Its not hard to see whats wrong with the idea.
You can claim superior expertise, but so will many others with a whole range of viewpoints. So again that doesnt support your desire to control others' contracts.
NT