Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing
From: Adrian on 8 Jul 2010 09:11
"Mike P" <privacy(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> For the stuff we buy, our weekly shop is usually £20 or more cheaper at
> Sainsburys than at Waitrose. I'm not talking about fresh stuff - just
> normal produce off the shelves. Waitrose is way overpriced.

Not if you compare quality to quality.

If you just compare "own-brand" to "own-brand", then sure there's a
difference. But there's a difference in quality, too. If you're happy
with the poorer quality, then it makes sense to go with the cheap shite.

The thing that puts Waitrose bills up is the very tempting, high quality
branded stuff that's absolutely bloody fantastic quality. Too much so to
actually resist...
From: Brimstone on 8 Jul 2010 09:17

"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12v0a2rujwivc.1odprctxs0wbj.dlg(a)40tude.net...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 13:31:35 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>
>> A simple test, can a horse move a glider sufficiently to generate lift at
>> walking speed?
>
> not at walking speed, firstly because normal aeroplanes do not function at
> walking speed.

Exactly my point.

> Pegasus would be the steed of choice.
>
He'd only get into a flap.


From: Albert T Cone on 8 Jul 2010 09:29
Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:18:20 +0100, Albert T Cone wrote:
>
>>> bikes are only any good for inner cities.
>> I beg to differ. A lot of people seem happy with a 40-minute commute,
>> which equates to about 15 miles by bike, once you have done it enough to
>> get fit. We use bikes for anything up to 50 mile each-way days out.
>> The bike is not a replacement for a car, which is why I use both, but
>> they are eminently suitable for using in the countryside
>
> Yes, you can commute by bike (if able to be fit enough) I would not do it
> as I think bikes and 44 tonners do not mix and never can safely.
There aren't many 44 ton lorries knocking about the countryside, once
you get off the major A-roads. It's usually possible to find a
cycle-able route which avoids major roads.

> my last trip was Shetland, I take cameras and big lenses, tripods,
> telescope etc, its 500 miles or whatever to Aberdeen, then the ferry. I
> base myself in one place and visit the various interesting sites as day
> trips, shortest is a walk, longest is 90 miles each way.
Fair enough. From the point of view of lugging stuff it isn't really a
problem; I usually carry two camera bodies, four primes, an L-series
telephoto in protective case and a general purpose wide range zoom and
it all fits easily in one pannier bag, and the tripod straps to the top
of the rack.

> People do cycle tour there (and I'm sure its good fun if challenging) but
> its a different thing, they have to focus on the cycling, which becomes the
> raison d'etre of the trip.
It can be, if you want. On the other hand you can spend a couple of
hours a day cycling and the rest doing whatever you want, and as long as
you are happy to stay in a different B&B every night, or every other
night, you can easily explore a couple of hundred miles of countryside,
in much better depth than you can by car, within a week.


>> All that said, I would tend to get the bikes to a region by car, because
>> PT is horrendously slow and expensive to get to anywhere nice.
>
> Well yes, taking bikes to a place on a car roof is an excellent way of
> doing the local milage once there. But the *primary* transport is then a
> car
Indeed. I'm not arguing with your point of view, I just disagree with
your statement that bikes are only any use for inner cities - it's
entirely feasible to live in, commute from and enjoy pleasure-trips in
the countryside with a bike. It is also entirely sensible to have a car
for those things which are difficult or impossible with a bike...
From: boltar2003 on 8 Jul 2010 09:44
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 04:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Doug <smithx(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>No I don't like greenwash, Adrain. Electricity is more efficient and
>less polluting than the individual ICEs used in cars. You must surely
>be aware of that by now?

Depends how its produced. If it comes from a coal or oil fired station probably
not. Gas powered - maybe. Anything else, certainly.

B2003


From: Adrian on 8 Jul 2010 10:13
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>No I don't like greenwash, Adrain. Electricity is more efficient and
>>less polluting than the individual ICEs used in cars. You must surely be
>>aware of that by now?

> Depends how its produced.

Figures for the UK... (yes, they're rounded)

> If it comes from a coal

33%

> or oil fired station

1%

> probably not. Gas powered - maybe.

40%. But that's ignoring the political ramifications, of course.

> Anything else, certainly.

Nuclear - 19%
Imports - 2% (Mainly French Nuclear, IIRC)
Hydro - 1%
Renewable - 3.5% (Since when wasn't hydro "renewable"?)

I don't think Duhg'd agree that nuclear was particularly non-polluting.
Maybe if you take an incredibly short-term and localised view. Can you
imagine a nuclear worst-case environmental equivalent of the BP dropped
bollock? I don't think Chernobyl would come close...
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Prev: Italian Tuneups
Next: 20mph when lights are flashing