Slashdot Mirror

You don't put a grill over the engine, because all that would do with a large birdstrike is add bits of metal into the mass of bird going into the engine.

Airports can, and do, put a huge amount of effort into clearing birds from around their runways, due to the risks that birdstrike presents during takeoff and landing. To quote from one of Heathrow Airport's own documents:

Birds can present a safety risk if they become caught in aircraft engines. Heathrowâ(TM)s bird hazard management team aim to make the airport as unappealing as possible for birds through habitat management, disturbing birds using distress noises, letting off flares and, as a last resort, through culling.

Bird populations can even influence the siting of airports. When a major recent UK study ruled out the construction of a new airport in the Thames Estuary (to the east of the capital), the scale of the bird-management that would be necessary was one of several reasons cited:

The operational risk to the airport posed by birdstrike could increase the scale of compensatory habitat required as it would require it to be sited further away, ideally to a minimum of 20km away from the site, and certainly outside of the 13km bird safeguarding circle, increasing the uncertainty as to its suitability as replacement for the habitat lost. It may also necessitate additional mitigation measures to be put in place. If any remaining bird habitats within the 13km safeguarding circle (that is those not already displaced by the airport's direct impact) were considered to pose an operational safety risk additional mitigation measures would be needed and it may ultimately be necessary to remove those habitats, increasing further the environmental impact and cost of compensation.

Welcome, America, to the beginnings of civilisation:

https://www.gov.uk/maternity-p...

Government-mandated statutory maternity (and/or paternity) leave, including pay (not the full amount but enough), for 26 weeks, guaranteed by law, for EVERY SINGLE FUCKING WORKING PERSON, no matter their job.

What with Facebook and this, you might soon get into something called a civilised state where you actually have a social support network that vaguely resembles humanity.

According to the original source, it's mostly onshore wind. See page 50: https://www.gov.uk/government/...

In another post in this same thread, someone disagreeing with me linked to some Australia data. In my reply I pointed out that the numbers on the site he linked to show sexual assault increased about 20% after the Australia law was passed. Again that's based on number linked from an anti-gun person trying to prove me wrong.

Another of the more clear examples was the UK gun ban. Official crime rate data (linked below) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

For more examples, analysis, and a pair of laws (with accompanying advertising campaigns) which did work, see this analysis:
https://docs.google.com/docume...

Raw data:
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 - 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

In another post in this same thread, someone disagreeing with me linked to some Australia data. In my reply I pointed out that the numbers on the site he linked to show sexual assault increased about 20% after the Australia law was passed. Again that's based on number linked from an anti-gun person trying to prove me wrong.

Another of the more clear examples was the UK gun ban. Official crime rate data (linked below) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

For more examples, analysis, and a pair of laws (with accompanying advertising campaigns) which did work, see this analysis:
https://docs.google.com/docume...

Raw data:
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 - 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

One of the more clear examples was the UK gun ban. Official crime rate data (linked below) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

For more examples and analysis ( and accompanying advertising campaigns) which did work, see this analysis:
https://docs.google.com/docume...

Raw data:
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

One of the more clear examples was the UK gun ban. Official crime rate data (linked below) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took effect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

For more examples and analysis ( and accompanying advertising campaigns) which did work, see this analysis:
https://docs.google.com/docume...

Raw data:
UK Home Office. A summary of recorded crime data from 1898 to 2001/02.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

UK Home Office. Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Kindly point out where in my post I assumed car occupancy was 1? It takes some chutzpah on your part, by the way, to make the complaint you did and then talk about cars carrying 2, 3 or 4 people, when the average car occupancy in the UK is about 1.5.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

It takes even more chutzpah to then pull mpg numbers out your ass, in which -- surprise! -- you underestimate bus mpg. 2? 4? More like 6:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...

The *entire point* of my using the London example (vs a US or UK example) was to show what could be achieved in a well-regulated bus system designed to promote ridership.

Not true. Self-evidently not true. Not even true when occupancy* levels are low, and definitely not true where levels are high. London bus occupancy is above 20 -- clearly, this delivers much lower carbon per passenger mile than any petrol/diesel car could achieve (especially when you take account of the fact that many London buses are hybrids).

Occupancy = passenger miles divided by vehicle miles.

It takes some chutzpah to bring up occupancy levels and at the same time assume all cars only have one person in them. Bonus points for using the phrase "self-evident" without any arithmetic.

Say half the buses are hybrids, hybrids get 4 mpg, and non-hybrids get 2.8 mpg (American not Imperial) Average 3.4 mpg, multiplied by 20 is 68 mpg, which is higher than any car I know of (keep in mind I'm using American gallons here). But a car carrying 2 people only has to get 34 mpg to match the bus, 3 people - 23 mpg, 4 people - 17 mpg.

Also note that occupancy for the whole of Great Britain is more like 11. See https://www.gov.uk/government/... So carbon output of an average bus-person-mile is probably about the same overall as driving a car by yourself, and two people in a car are much more efficient than the average of the bus system.

Official crime rate information from the Home Office (linked below) indicate that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took affect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

Source: Official Home Office reports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Again, crime isn't some new problem that we have to start thinking about now. It's been around for a while, lots of different things have been tried, and now we know what has worked and what hasn't. We've tried different things, and we've seen the results.

The positive results of the sentencing guidelines for using a weapon in commission of a felony along with advertising the longer sentence in Texas aren't surprising if you think about one thing. If you specifically want criminals to use weapons less, if that's your goal, that's a matter of influencing people's behavior. Companies have spent billions over the last hundred years figuring out how to get people to buy this, not that, how to target a specific demographic, etc. That's called marketing, and we know how to do it. Marketing is well-studied, so we know how to get the message across to the thug demographic, and we now know what message works - using a weapon in the commission of a felony will put you in prison for years.

Official crime rate information from the Home Office (linked below) indicate that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took affect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years. Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

Source: Official Home Office reports:
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Recorded crime statistics for England and Wales 2002/03 â" 2013/13.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Again, crime isn't some new problem that we have to start thinking about now. It's been around for a while, lots of different things have been tried, and now we know what has worked and what hasn't. We've tried different things, and we've seen the results.

The positive results of the sentencing guidelines for using a weapon in commission of a felony along with advertising the longer sentence in Texas aren't surprising if you think about one thing. If you specifically want criminals to use weapons less, if that's your goal, that's a matter of influencing people's behavior. Companies have spent billions over the last hundred years figuring out how to get people to buy this, not that, how to target a specific demographic, etc. That's called marketing, and we know how to do it. Marketing is well-studied, so we know how to get the message across to the thug demographic, and we now know what message works - using a weapon in the commission of a felony will put you in prison for years.

Canadian are still subject to the UK Queen

No. Canadians are now citizens, not subjects. Australians are citizens, not subjects. New Zealanders are citizens, not subjects. Even in the UK people are citizens, not subjects.

"Will someone please sue these fuckers!"

In the UK there is something called the Small Claims Court which is designed for, well, small claims. It costs very little to get into and involves magistrates (IIRC). The fees are here https://www.gov.uk/make-court-.... Lawyers are generally frowned upon as I recall because it is a form of arbitration between reasonable people.

It might not sound very exciting but you claim for your costs for reinstating your system after it was broken. So if you do it yourself, you might price your time at say £20 per hour (reasonable) or you might hire outside help at say £30ph. It will take say five hours to find and copy all your data off to a USB disc that you had to buy at say £80 plus the two hours trip to town. Then you have to restore your system from source - let's say you still have a Windows restore partition - that will take a good two hours. Then you have to patch it - another five hours. Reinstall your apps - another five hours.

So 5*20 + 80 + 2*20 + 2*20 + 5*20 + 5*20 = 17*20 + 80 = £420 minimum

That's for someone who knows what they are doing and are being reasonable. For an IT duffer then the £30+ph is more likely because they will need professional help (receipts please).

The whole point of this is that MS (if they really are pushing forced installs) will end up with some form of court judgment against them and you will get recompense. The SCC is not a get rich quick scheme. It is designed as an easy to use and cheap way of reclaiming monies. It has worked very well for me and some friends in the past. In one case the threat of SCC was enough to make a very, very large multi-national do the right thing because of the fact that the SCC is a serious court and a judgement against you can look a bit shit (especially when publicised.)

Now, if after restoring your system it does yet another win 10 breakage then you can always do it all again. If a few 1000 people do this it could be interesting.

I am making a big assumption here which is that you will probably have to persuade the magistrates that your system was broken by MS's automatic "update". You would have to make a formal claim to MS first requesting payment for your time. You would also have to demonstrate that they refused to comply.

Worth a crack though

Cheers
Jon

You don't remember correctly. Here are the UK stats for 2014. If you want the difference between armed police in the US and the UK, I draw your attention to the last line:

There were 5,875 police firearms’ officers as at 31 March 2014.
There were 14,864 police firearms’ operations in the year ending March 2014.
The police discharged firearms in 2 operations in the year ending March 2014; the figure has been six or less in each of the previous 5 years.

For a "secret court" the CoP isn't very secret considering that there is a link to it on the UK gov's own web site https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/court-of-protection

Bold claims are not worth the pixels they are displayed with if you can 't back it up with interdependently verifiable facts.

Citations please.

Go on then, tell them. I just did. Read here about their "world leadership in online child safety" or skip ahead here to vent.

It's all available online as well: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wo...

âoeIn the FBIâ(TM)s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.â (FBI â" CUS â" Violent Crime)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...


* And ehre is UK : https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim

So you get pushed and shoved, and hurt your ankle ? In UK a Violent crime. That would not even count as aggravated assault in US : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


Basically when you look into it, the myth that there is more violent crime in UK than US is jsut a myth, usually misused to pretend gun are needed for self defense. They are not. They are escalation tools, they lead mugger and petty crime to escalate the force they use in their crime.

But this already happens with benefits tourism. People from Eastern Europe come to the UK and claim job seekers' allowance after 3 months, child benefits for the children they have back home and free healthcare because hospitals do not check eligibility - all at the tax payers' expense. Yes, some of those tax payers are also Eastern Europeans, but I mention this as counter evidence to the above that people within the EU already exploit the large gap between the absolute value differences between the EU nations. The British prime minister is currently trying (and failing) to negotiate changes to allow the UK to discriminate between people in terms of how long they have been in the country to alter what benefits they are entitled to and when.

"Overly ambitious" standards? In whose opinion, the car manufacturers or those who suffer the consequences?

This isn't some civic protest akin to Prohibition, these are regulations designed to avoid Tragedy of the Commons scenarios with real costs to society. In the UK alone, nitrogen dioxide emissions cause 23,500 extra deaths, costing around £13bn per year.

That is a classic justification mechanism for crazy morons in denial. There are tons of studies on this subject, with contradictory results (as is usual for medical studies with a political component). Sure, you can pick just the few percentage of studies that you agree with, but that doesn't mean you aren't a biased moron.

So far, we're pretty confident of the following: 1) Alcohol consumption correlates with lower mortality 1a) But people in at-risk groups drink less, including poor, extremely unhealthy, and teetotalling ex-alcoholics. 2) Alcohol improves on some health markers 2b) But makes others worse. 2c) Which probably makes alcohol's cost/benefits dependent on other things, such as whether you have heart disease.

the protective effects of alcohol on circulatory disease has always been small, and arguably an artifact of being unable statistically to separate out all other correlated factors, whether lifestyle of moderate drinkers vs nondrinkers vs heavy drinkers, or the actual delivery of alcohol (wine and beer containing lots of other active compounds than alcohol; tannins, phenols, etc.) but it has up till now been relatively consistently found.
condensing a large volume of studies, these guys find the protective effect is less than the usual estimate. https://www.gov.uk/government/... and thus the british government is ethically required to publicize the warning
and of course there are a lot of other things involved, diet maybe, genetics certainly, etc etc etc

https://www.gov.uk/government/... (which links to the actual guidelines and consultation documents).

http://www.parliament.uk/busin... is the background.
UK mass surveillance 'totalitarian' and will 'cost lives', warns ex-NSA tech boss (06 Jan 16 )
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar... has some more background with the pdf:
Re link to the draft bill https://www.gov.uk/government/...

You can opt-out and get an (enhanced) hand search. If you decline, you are escorted landside and can't fly.
(If the officers actually comply with the regulations is a different question.)

From the "Security Scanners Direction 2015", Annex C, Part 14:

An individual who has been selected to be screened by security scanner may opt out of being scanned but only if the individual being screened agrees to be searched by an alternative screening method, including at least an enhanced hand search in private. That search may require the loosening or removal of clothing.

Department for Transport - Security scanners implementation information Security Scanners Direction 2015

You can opt-out and get an (enhanced) hand search. If you decline, you are escorted landside and can't fly.
(If the officers actually comply with the regulations is a different question.)

From the "Security Scanners Direction 2015", Annex C, Part 14:

An individual who has been selected to be screened by security scanner may opt out of being scanned but only if the individual being screened agrees to be searched by an alternative screening method, including at least an enhanced hand search in private. That search may require the loosening or removal of clothing.

Department for Transport - Security scanners implementation information Security Scanners Direction 2015

I know you meant *mad.

Do any of you guys living in the US realize how little consumer protection you have? The entire lack of price regulation means that shops/companies can advertise one price, and then charge you another at the till. IT DOESN'T MATTER where the extra charges come from, Government taxes or otherwise. The entire rest of the western world realizes that consumer protection is important, and has regulation to guarantee a customer that the price they see is the price they pay. There are NO technical arguments against this, and the reason I'm shouting and frothing a little is because whenever I mention this in person to US citizens I am awe-struck at the barrage of apologist statements I am subjected to. I am left thinking WTF is going on with these people?!?!

So, the USA celebrates free speech, free market, and a capitalist ideals, yet smothers its consumers with bullshit advertising and confusing pricing schemes. Remember that one of the basic tenants of capitalism is an "informed customer". I'm sorry, but as an outsider looking in, I simply don't understand how any of you can honestly not realize how much you're getting fucked over. Anyone? What the fuck is wrong with you people? ...

--
Not APK

PS: Written with US spelling to help with reading comprehension.

In the UK the govt mandated electronic document formats are things like PDF, CSV and ODF. https://www.gov.uk/government/...

I still find it hard to believe, given our, *ahem* questionable approach to standards (we ratified and pushed OOXML forward as an open standard).

The UK does not need visa approval for US travel.

It's a visa by another name. https://www.gov.uk/foreign-tra... says 'may' but you're not getting on an aircraft without going through the bullshit: https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

Employee theft in England and Wales

Also, thefts by employees are only reported 30% of the time scroll down to section 6.2.

Or here

Employee theft, while only accounting for 0.7% of crimes overall, was the third largest type of crime by value. While it was the only one of the key offences that dropped in terms of volume and value from the previous year, it remained at its second highest level for nine years.

In other words, the average haul of an employee stealing is much higher than other types of incidents. Makes sense when an employee can arrange to have a skid or a whole truckload of goods disappear.

Try those silly laws when there is traffic. Having a lane that you can't use except to pass becomes ridiculous when all the cars are averaging 5 mph or so.

At least in the UK, the rules are reasonable here and in any case no police officer is realistically going to be upset because you kept up with slow-moving traffic that is clearly flowing in lanes, maybe unless you're being a jerk by changing lanes all the time or something like that. See rule 268 in the Highway Code, for example.

Baroness Neville Rolfe has some nice earrings, they look expensive and it must be expensive to licence their photographic reproduction on a taxpayer funded web site. That necklace looks expensive too, it can't be cheap to license photographic publishing rights to such expensive jewellery. I don't know what the tie-died piece of shit draped over her shoulders is. It may not be the most elegant attire but I should imagine triple licensing or damages for being published when worn by a model sporting a Hitler hair-do.

John Alty is committed to transparency although he may also think about committing to a hair piece. The taxpayer will cover the publishing fees should he be photographed wearing one. He also should have gone to Specsavers, their licensing fees for photographic publishing of their products would surely be amenable to the public fisc.

One hopes that Sean Dennehey would go to Specsavers too. On a lighter and more seasonal note, I won a set of comedy teeth like that in a Christmas cracker once.

Baroness Neville Rolfe has some nice earrings, they look expensive and it must be expensive to licence their photographic reproduction on a taxpayer funded web site. That necklace looks expensive too, it can't be cheap to license photographic publishing rights to such expensive jewellery. I don't know what the tie-died piece of shit draped over her shoulders is. It may not be the most elegant attire but I should imagine triple licensing or damages for being published when worn by a model sporting a Hitler hair-do.

John Alty is committed to transparency although he may also think about committing to a hair piece. The taxpayer will cover the publishing fees should he be photographed wearing one. He also should have gone to Specsavers, their licensing fees for photographic publishing of their products would surely be amenable to the public fisc.

One hopes that Sean Dennehey would go to Specsavers too. On a lighter and more seasonal note, I won a set of comedy teeth like that in a Christmas cracker once.

Baroness Neville Rolfe has some nice earrings, they look expensive and it must be expensive to licence their photographic reproduction on a taxpayer funded web site. That necklace looks expensive too, it can't be cheap to license photographic publishing rights to such expensive jewellery. I don't know what the tie-died piece of shit draped over her shoulders is. It may not be the most elegant attire but I should imagine triple licensing or damages for being published when worn by a model sporting a Hitler hair-do.

John Alty is committed to transparency although he may also think about committing to a hair piece. The taxpayer will cover the publishing fees should he be photographed wearing one. He also should have gone to Specsavers, their licensing fees for photographic publishing of their products would surely be amenable to the public fisc.

One hopes that Sean Dennehey would go to Specsavers too. On a lighter and more seasonal note, I won a set of comedy teeth like that in a Christmas cracker once.

Perhaps you forgot to apply to the UK citizenship?

https://www.gov.uk/becoming-a-...

(*facepalm*)

Not in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/capital-gai...

Which is why I prefixed my post as not knowing if such was applicable in Australia.

Sorry, that sounds convincing since we're a nation of whipped puppies, but its not true. You don't have to follow the national curriculum - https://www.gov.uk/home-educat... (and I'm fairly sure you don't have to be inspected by Ofsted).

This should be covered my legislation. Apparently, you can't mislead by, "including false or deceptive messages". https://www.gov.uk/marketing-a...

Welcome to the 21st-fucking-century.

UK Statutory Maternity / Paternity Pay:

https://www.gov.uk/paternity-p...

Gives up to 52 weeks paid leave for one/either/both parents (shared among them), including in case of stillborn, including for adoption, legally allowing you to build up holiday, get rises and return to work while it goes on.

Sure, it won't necessarily be at full-pay-rates but this is the fucking bare, legal, statutory MINIMUM that you're required to give by even being an employer in the UK

So let's not shout about how great Facebook are for letting you spend more than a fucking month with your newborn child.

The US really need to get out more and look at what other countries consider normal and/or moral.

The bill makes no explicit mention of encryption except as it pertains to the existing law. So presumably the legal scholars of slashdot will let me know exactly which of the provisions in this hefty pdf outlaws encryption.

In the UK this is called the "Sanctions List", and is available here: http://hmt-sanctions.s3.amazon...

Here is the official HM Treasury website page for it: https://www.gov.uk/government/...

Until now the stories about the Investigatory Powers Bill have been hard to gauge as the bill was not published, but now it is.

The Slashdot title, "Internet Firms To Be Banned From Offering Unbreakable Encryption Under New UK Laws" looks to be wrong or at least misleading. The relevant part of the bill states:

62. ... b. RIPA requires CSPs to provide communications data when served with a notice, to assist in giving effect to interception warrants, and to maintain permanent interception capabilities, including maintaining the ability to remove any encryption applied by the CSP to whom the notice relates. 63. ...The draft Bill will not impose any additional requirements in relation to encryption over and above the existing obligations in RIPA. ...

So Communications Service Providers can have strong encryption, as long as they keep the key and hand it over when required as they are required already by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The horse has already bolted.

This does happen in the Western world - e.g. Huawei's evaluation centre in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/...

And depending on how Facebook is setup the government would have actually received MORE money as personal tax rates go up with income.

Income Tax rates and allowances

Depending on how Facebook is setup in the UK this may not have been taxed as income (there's dividends, capital gains, etc.), but at nearly all levels of income the percentage is higher than the 20% corporate tax rate.

The only story here is Facebook isn't holding a lot of money in their British office. It may be going to the great Irish tech tax haven, but that's not Britain's fault.

National healthcare performance UK - Expenditure per capita UK $3,405 US 8,508

https://www.gov.uk/government/...

I am from the Internet you ignorant fuckwit.

UK power is expensive for a variety of reasons. We pay a ridiculous amount for nuclear, and don't make good use of our excellent wind resources.

Not sure who told you that. I suggest not believing anything they tell you again. Levilized cost of UK electricity generation sources, 2013, 10% discount rate, from cheapest to most expensive:

(in Pounds per MWh)
80 = combined cycle gas turbine
90 = nuclear
101 = onshore wind
108 = biomass conversion (usually means methane recapture from landfills)
113 = offshore wind R2
120 = offshore wind R3
158 = large-scale PV solar
181 = open cycle gas turbine

Estimated levilized cost for projects starting in 2019, 10% discount rate (in Pounds per MWh):
80 = nuclear
85 = combined cycle gas turbine
95 = gas CCGT post combustion carbon capture
99 = onshore wind
107 = offshore wind R2
107 = coal with oxy combustion carbon capture
114 = offshore wind R3
123 = large-scale PV solar
134 = coal gasification with carbon capture
190 = open cycle gas turbine

"keep in mind, their cars are 100% legal in the much stricter European market"

Will do. However you might like to know that our (UK) Road Fund (annual tax for owning a car) is https://www.gov.uk/calculate-v... based on emissions.

I haven't looked too deeply into this and CO2 is not the same as NOx but I suspect there is a vague correlation. Anyway, 1.2M cars are earmarked for recall in the UK alone.

Never said cyclists don't use less energy. They use less energy, but they use it terribly inefficiently. And no, nobody burns "excess calories that they would have already eaten". The reason you get hungry after exercise is because you're burning calories. If you start burning an excess of calories and never eat more to compensate, you will starve to death.

If you ride your bike an hour, you'll burn about 500 calories. If you drink two beers worth drinking, you'll consume 500 calories. The average person has a pretty large variance in caloric intake and an hour exercise isn't going to change the food distribution of the world. So it's not a stretch to say that extra food consumption from cycling isn't going to affect the environment at all, when comparing to moving a 1000 kg car with the 90 kg person inside it going the exact same distance with the goal of getting that person from point A to point B. Nor is a single person driving a car, I think we're in agreement on that. The cyclist commuter wins easily. Especially if you go back to the petrol and car supply chains like you did with cyclists food (after all, oil wells don't drill themselves, nor does gasoline refine itself, nor do cars spring magically from the earth...all of these require tremendous energy.

And of course it's risk of death per mile that matters, not per time or per number of trips. Are you going to quit your job and pick a job closer to your home when you switch to the bike too? You have the same destination as in the car, just a different mode of transportation. You have to do the same number of miles.

This would be true if all miles were the same, but they aren't because of hills. My 10 mile bike ride takes 45 minutes where it would take me 30 minutes in Florida. Plus, probability math would use a timescale, not a distance. More important considerations would be the road configuration, traffic per lane, clearance between the car lanes and bike lanes, and the blood alcohol content of the driver and cyclist. Apparently it's more dangerous in the UK than the US, our fatality rates are 1:2. Clearly the UK roads are more hazardous to cyclists than American (because I know that the Brits drive better than we do).

The average Briton cycles 53 miles a year. The average number of car miles is 8200 - 155 times more mileage. Looking at the same year's accident statistics, 801 people died in cars and 8232 were seriously injured. 110 cyclists died, 3222 seriously injured. That's 7,3 times more deaths and 2,6 times more serious injuries for cars... which go 155 times further. Even if you factor in 100% of pedestrian deaths to cars (and hey, are we forgetting that we still need goods hauled around?), they're only about half of the car casualties, so it doesn't even bring the numbers close too each other.

Sorry, bike nuts. Your mode of transportation is horrible for the environment and horribly dangerous per mile. So stop trying to make us all take part in your stupid hobby.

By the way, I'm not saying don't drive your car, I'm just calling BS on saying that cyclists are less efficient than cars when considering commuting. And it is more dangerous, but not extraordinarily so.

Never said cyclists don't use less energy. They use less energy, but they use it terribly inefficiently. And no, nobody burns "excess calories that they would have already eaten". The reason you get hungry after exercise is because you're burning calories. If you start burning an excess of calories and never eat more to compensate, you will starve to death.

If you ride your bike an hour, you'll burn about 500 calories. If you drink two beers worth drinking, you'll consume 500 calories. The average person has a pretty large variance in caloric intake and an hour exercise isn't going to change the food distribution of the world. So it's not a stretch to say that extra food consumption from cycling isn't going to affect the environment at all, when comparing to moving a 1000 kg car with the 90 kg person inside it going the exact same distance with the goal of getting that person from point A to point B. Nor is a single person driving a car, I think we're in agreement on that. The cyclist commuter wins easily. Especially if you go back to the petrol and car supply chains like you did with cyclists food (after all, oil wells don't drill themselves, nor does gasoline refine itself, nor do cars spring magically from the earth...all of these require tremendous energy.

And of course it's risk of death per mile that matters, not per time or per number of trips. Are you going to quit your job and pick a job closer to your home when you switch to the bike too? You have the same destination as in the car, just a different mode of transportation. You have to do the same number of miles.

This would be true if all miles were the same, but they aren't because of hills. My 10 mile bike ride takes 45 minutes where it would take me 30 minutes in Florida. Plus, probability math would use a timescale, not a distance. More important considerations would be the road configuration, traffic per lane, clearance between the car lanes and bike lanes, and the blood alcohol content of the driver and cyclist. Apparently it's more dangerous in the UK than the US, our fatality rates are 1:2. Clearly the UK roads are more hazardous to cyclists than American (because I know that the Brits drive better than we do).

The average Briton cycles 53 miles a year. The average number of car miles is 8200 - 155 times more mileage. Looking at the same year's accident statistics, 801 people died in cars and 8232 were seriously injured. 110 cyclists died, 3222 seriously injured. That's 7,3 times more deaths and 2,6 times more serious injuries for cars... which go 155 times further. Even if you factor in 100% of pedestrian deaths to cars (and hey, are we forgetting that we still need goods hauled around?), they're only about half of the car casualties, so it doesn't even bring the numbers close too each other.

Sorry, bike nuts. Your mode of transportation is horrible for the environment and horribly dangerous per mile. So stop trying to make us all take part in your stupid hobby.

By the way, I'm not saying don't drive your car, I'm just calling BS on saying that cyclists are less efficient than cars when considering commuting. And it is more dangerous, but not extraordinarily so.

Never said cyclists don't use less energy. They use less energy, but they use it terribly inefficiently. And no, nobody burns "excess calories that they would have already eaten". The reason you get hungry after exercise is because you're burning calories. If you start burning an excess of calories and never eat more to compensate, you will starve to death. There's a small amount of exception to that rule, in as you lose weight, your baseline metabolism drops. But it doesn't drop anywhere near the amount that a person cycling an hour or so a day burns. You simply cannot add an extra ~750 calories a day to your routine and not eat any more. You will literally die if you do so.

Human energy doesn't come from magic. It comes from food.

And this thread was about a cyclist dying in an accident. A comment whose main purpose was about the dangers of cycling is fully on topic. The environmental aspect was just a related followup that people are choosing to obsess over.

And of course it's risk of death per mile that matters, not per time or per number of trips. Are you going to quit your job and pick a job closer to your home when you switch to the bike too? You have the same destination as in the car, just a different mode of transportation. You have to do the same number of miles.

The average Briton cycles 53 miles a year. The average number of car miles is 8200 - 155 times more mileage. Looking at the same year's accident statistics, 801 people died in cars and 8232 were seriously injured. 110 cyclists died, 3222 seriously injured. That's 7,3 times more deaths and 2,6 times more serious injuries for cars... which go 155 times further. Even if you factor in 100% of pedestrian deaths to cars (and hey, are we forgetting that we still need goods hauled around?), they're only about half of the car casualties, so it doesn't even bring the numbers close too each other.

Sorry, bike nuts. Your mode of transportation is horrible for the environment and horribly dangerous per mile. So stop trying to make us all take part in your stupid hobby.

Never said cyclists don't use less energy. They use less energy, but they use it terribly inefficiently. And no, nobody burns "excess calories that they would have already eaten". The reason you get hungry after exercise is because you're burning calories. If you start burning an excess of calories and never eat more to compensate, you will starve to death. There's a small amount of exception to that rule, in as you lose weight, your baseline metabolism drops. But it doesn't drop anywhere near the amount that a person cycling an hour or so a day burns. You simply cannot add an extra ~750 calories a day to your routine and not eat any more. You will literally die if you do so.

Human energy doesn't come from magic. It comes from food.

And this thread was about a cyclist dying in an accident. A comment whose main purpose was about the dangers of cycling is fully on topic. The environmental aspect was just a related followup that people are choosing to obsess over.

And of course it's risk of death per mile that matters, not per time or per number of trips. Are you going to quit your job and pick a job closer to your home when you switch to the bike too? You have the same destination as in the car, just a different mode of transportation. You have to do the same number of miles.

The average Briton cycles 53 miles a year. The average number of car miles is 8200 - 155 times more mileage. Looking at the same year's accident statistics, 801 people died in cars and 8232 were seriously injured. 110 cyclists died, 3222 seriously injured. That's 7,3 times more deaths and 2,6 times more serious injuries for cars... which go 155 times further. Even if you factor in 100% of pedestrian deaths to cars (and hey, are we forgetting that we still need goods hauled around?), they're only about half of the car casualties, so it doesn't even bring the numbers close too each other.

Sorry, bike nuts. Your mode of transportation is horrible for the environment and horribly dangerous per mile. So stop trying to make us all take part in your stupid hobby.