Admiring the night sky - for how much longer?

[johnnystorm]

One good aspect of all the internet satellites going up is that eventually all the ground based mobile phone masts will become redundant so they could all be taken down.

One man has taken his kids out of school in protest about the unknown health risk.

The health risks are known, and are pretty much zero. Perhaps if he could get a decent signal he'd be able to research that.

Then again the web is also full of vaccine related rubbish so no telling what you'll find.

[u02sgb]

However, I'll eat my words if he does a Gates Foundation kind of thing

Gates started out trying to be successful and make money. Musk started out deciding what problems he thought needed solving and working towards that. It's not just getting to Mars, it's establishing a colony so if an asteroid (or man made disaster) does write off the earth, the human race isn't done.

Tesla starting at the luxury end and working back so they can scale and learn while bringing in some money.

Don't get me wrong, what Gates is doing now is amazing. I just think Musk deserves the benefit of the doubt on altruistic motives. He's bet his personal fortune on these projects more than once and the hurdles he's got over are non swear filtered "vaguely exciting" in the true sense.

Sounds like I've drunk the kool aid :). I'm usually pretty cynical about these things too!

[jameso]

^ True, and my knee-jerk cynicism/idealism isn't giving him the benefit of the doubt. I can't take this 'colonise mars' stuff seriously though. The more we believe we have an plan B the easier it is to not see the importance of our environment. Money can't fix every problem, we also need an attitude change to go with it and a willingness to fix the problems we've stored up so far. And if he really justifies it based on an asteroid risk... as said earlier, we'll have made a mess of things here within 50 years at this rate - asteroids that size are 100-million year events, so what's the risk of something big but not extinction levels, maybe every million or 2 million?

Transport power sources that don't need mining or fossil fuels. Bikes could count for a chunk of it but hey, that's just crazy talk Is solving that one of similar technical effort? Higher-gain solar energy satellite chains that could transfer electricity back to earth without heat. Power comes down some sort of tether / power line that goes from earth to above the atmosphere. We still have the chain of satellites but for a different reason than wider access to cat gifs and facebook-distributed political division (and bike-related stuff).

(edit to add, clearly this is an area where I have opinions or emotive reactions rather than any understanding .. that's never the best place to be ... interested though and will read some more on the whole project as I'd not heard of it until this thread)

[Bearbonesnorm]

edit to add, clearly this is an area where I have opinions or emotive reactions rather than any understanding

Hey, don't let that stop you, this is the internet and without the above it ceases to function

[pistonbroke]

Transport power sources that don't need mining or fossil fuels. Bikes could count for a chunk of it but hey, that's just crazy talk

Bikes clearly use a range of non renewable energy sources in their manufacture, steel and alu need massive amounts of heat and carbon (plastic) 'nuff said. Bamboo and wood is real I tell thee.
(Where's the tongue in cheek emojee?)

[u02sgb]

interested though and will read some more on the whole project as I'd not heard of it until this thread

Exactly! As Stu says, that's when the Internet functions best.

If you read into it much you'll find it he's got much crazier ideas than the asteroid

I agree bikes should be featuring much higher in our climate solution, but doubt you'd find much argument against that in here. Making it a reality in the States is a much bigger hurdle than Tesla had had trying to take on the embedded car manufacturers though. Their infrastructure just isn't setup for bikes or pedestrians really. Ours is a bit better but still needs so much work, the benefits are huge but unfortunately I don't think there's enough political will at the moment.

I've always thought a tax break for fitting showers and secure bike storage at places of work would help immensely. Make commuting by bike more common and the rest would follow.

Anyway, thanks for engaging Jameso. Btw, my wife loves her Arkose!

Stu.

[ScotRoutes]

Some places pay cyclists to commute. A healthier lifestyle for them means less pressure on healthcare services, less pollution means, yep, less pressure on healthcare services. So, it works out cheaper to incentivise folk to cycle.

[PaulB2]

HSBC are removing most of their car parking at regional headquarters in birmingham and sheffield while adding shower facilities, changing room and bike racks. The cynic in me does wonder if they're making a huge wedge of cash by selling off the land to developers but it's a start in the right direction.

[RIP]

Interesting to hear that Paul - sounds impressive on the face of it. It works in Nottingham....

[jameso]

I've always thought a tax break for fitting showers and secure bike storage at places of work would help immensely. Make commuting by bike more common and the rest would follow.

Anyway, thanks for engaging Jameso. Btw, my wife loves her Arkose!

Thanks for the posts that set me off a good place for a read and ramble as ever. Glad the Arkose is doing well there!

Good for HSBC, whatever the reason. The alternative value of car parking space in cities must be huge and tbh I just don't think cars have much place in the centres of urban spaces anymore. Create parking spaces at train stations on the outskirts instead (they did 250m from where I live on a main line into London - hard to be against it, though a few nimbys were)

I always wanted to see a reduction on public transport costs for non car owners. Selfish yes as I don't own a car simply out of choice, but would benefit or reward those that find running a car too expensive or not cost-effective.

[Bearlegged]

I always wanted to see a reduction on public transport costs for non car owners. Selfish yes as I don't own a car simply out of choice, but would benefit or reward those that find running a car too expensive or not cost-effective.

Seems like a tricky one to manage. How would you tell if a person is or isn't a car owner as they get on to the bus or train? Could end up being one of those schemes where it costs more to administer than it might produce in cost savings... Better public transport services with lower costs all round (allied to financial disincentives to pursue personal car use, e.g higher fuel duty?) strike me as a better solution, as you'll also tempt folk out of their cars (hopefully). More people using public transport leads to better investment in it, leads to more people and so on... fingers crossed, eh?

[jameso]

How would you tell if a person is or isn't a car owner

If you don't have car taxed in your name you can apply for a discount card like the two together train card me and OH use (30% off - it's great).

Agree though, tax car use and flights to provide better (publicly-owned) public transport as a priority, yes. I just think it's ---- that if you can't afford a car you still have to pay the highest bus and train fares in Europe over here. The cost gap between car use and pub. tr. needs to be greater. Plenty of people need a car, not their fault, but they won't use alternatives alongside the car while the per-journey costs are as they are.

[Bearlegged]

How would you tell if a person is or isn't a car owner

If you don't have car taxed in your name you can apply for a discount card...

I don't have a car taxed in my name, but we have one in our household. It's easy loopholes like this that make me think it'd be more trouble than it's worth to administer.

[Bearbonesnorm]

I'm more concerned about those people such as me who would like to use the train more but have no choice but to have a car. Nearest station is 10 miles and even the closest bus stop is 4 miles. Offering other people cheaper public transport because they have the 'luxury' of not needing a car would p1ss me right off.

[jameso]

How would you tell if a person is or isn't a car owner

If you don't have car taxed in your name you can apply for a discount card...

I don't have a car taxed in my name, but we have one in our household. It's easy loopholes like this that make me think it'd be more trouble than it's worth to administer.

Ah - been a while since I taxed a car, thought it was done in my name then. An application process should be OK though - you could get a discount card for one person in your household assuming 2 of you have a driving license, you can't both drive at once?

Stuart, you have the benefit of not living in a congested urban hole, be happy about the deal

[Bearbonesnorm]

Stuart, you have the benefit of not living in a congested urban hole, be happy about the deal

True but there's no walls at the border, everyone's free to move ... they just choose not to

[johnnystorm]

However, I'll eat my words if he does a Gates Foundation kind of thing

Don't get me wrong, what Gates is doing now is amazing. I just think Musk deserves the benefit of the doubt on altruistic motives. He's bet his personal fortune on these projects more than once and the hurdles he's got over are non swear filtered "vaguely exciting" in the true sense.

Sounds like I've drunk the kool aid :). I'm usually pretty cynical about these things too!

Musk and his various ventures have benefitted massively from Government subsidies.

This also makes for amusing reading:

https://twitter.com/atomicthumbs/status ... 45376?s=19

[tobasco]

I reckon there were many mistakes and unforeseen consequences resulting from the way industry was developed after discovering what we could do with fossil fuels, in particular internal combustion engines. *

Having failed to learn, I reckon we (society at large) are doing a repeat with the digital revolution of the last ~50 years. Lord knows what the unforeseen consequences will turn out to be this time round.

Here’s a few tongue in cheek thoughts to help alleviate the issues discussed so far-

i. Double taxation of petrol/diesel for consumer vehicles, use the proceeds to improve public transport infrastructure.

ii. Massive investment/incentives in cycle paths and their use.

iii. No roads near supermarkets - you have to cycle, walk or use public transport. Incentives for walking/cycling.

iv. Make our remaining wild areas into national monuments like US (Lakes, mid Wales etc) and close the roads to public traffic. You want to go there, you have to pedal or walk.

v. No bloomin IT allowed in wild places, keep them wild before they become theme parks.

* The Prize is a good read, or youtube vid of history of fossil fuel industry.

[ScotRoutes]

i - and if you live where there are no public transport services, well you'll just have to move to where there is, see iv

iv - We don't have any wild land in the UK and what's empty is only because folk were forced off much of it either physically or through economic pressures.

That's a very "townie" viewpoint you are espousing.

[techno]

That's a very "townie" viewpoint you are espousing.

...Here’s a few tongue in cheek thoughts ....

[Bearlegged]

I don't think anyone's under any illusions that car use is anything but a necessity in many parts of the country. Many of the suggested solutions would probably have the greatest effects in urban areas. Maybe the key is to start the "War on the motorist"* in urban areas, and use any proceeds to improve things in more rural ones?

*