They say the three most important things about buying a house are Location, Location and Location. Well the three most important things about keeping your house warm are Insulation, Insulation and Insulation (although I guess you need a boiler too!).
I was doing some more insulation yesterday, I put glass wool between the joists on my ground floor. Why? Well I have a vaulted floor with about 450mm of space below it, and this space, as with all houses, is vented to the outside via some vent bricks to allow air to flow and to keep the space dry. Well at the moment I don't have carpet down so two things happened when it was cold or windy. Firstly, you get drafts coming through any gaps in the floorboards (the boards are tongue-and-groove but there are still spaces in some places). The other is simply that heat from the living room is conducted downwards into the cold void. Even carpet does not insulate that well, although it can reduce drafts, otherwise we would just use carpet to insulate our lofts.
To fill the cavities, I made a hole in the floor and crawled under the void. I pushed the glass wool into the gaps and then covered the underside with a large tarpaulin which I nailed into the joists to hold the glass wool in place. Note that my floor joists are only 100mm because they are supported by a small wall in the middle and I assumed that they would be 200mm because they were floor joists so I had to cram the glass wool in a bit. Better check the size and get the correct insulation because if you crush too much air out of the wool, it doesn't insulate as well.
Another area I insulated was the floor void between ground and first floor, particularly the part next to the outside wall where it is common to have gaps between the inside of the void and the external wall cavity - another place for drafts and cold. I stuffed some more glass wool into these gaps and it should make a bit of difference.
I also bought a couple of curtains to cover my front and back doors which although U-PVC do leak drafts around the edge. The curtains help to remove the drafts and slow convection of the warm air inside the house onto the door which then conducts outside.
Once the loft is insulated, none of these other fixes make a big difference by themselves but once added up, they do make a noticeable difference.
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Monday 20 December 2010
Outrageously Bad Roads
I live in Cheltenham and the roads during this snow are quite simply outrageously bad. Now Gloucestershire does not have many big towns and cities, Cheltenham and Gloucester are the main two so why has nothing happened in Cheltenham? Why are people skidding and crashing all over the place? Why have all the traffic light detectors stopped working and more important where are the council who are supposed to manage all this?
I came in to work today and the motorway was totally clear, the surface was good and slightly wet but otherwise great but every other road in Cheltenham is covered in pack ice. I've seen cars skidding when stopping and pulling away (especially the rear-wheel drive ones) and I've seen people stranded on inclines.
Quite simply, people need to get to work. Most employers do not give free days for people who claim they can't get in and most of us cannot afford to have a day unpaid.
Where are you Gloucestershire County Council? Where are the gritters? Are you going to make excuses? Are the managers going to claim lack of funding or equipment? Are you going to claim that you don't have enough staff?
I'm sorry but this situation is unacceptable. If gritting doesn't work because of the temperatures then do something else. Get snow-ploughs out; pay farmers to plow roads; get your staff (including managers) out with shovels at major junctions to clear the ice away; give us grit so we can treat our own roads; switch traffic lights off since people can't stop anyway and when they do they can't pull away. Just do something and don't make crap excuses!
I came in to work today and the motorway was totally clear, the surface was good and slightly wet but otherwise great but every other road in Cheltenham is covered in pack ice. I've seen cars skidding when stopping and pulling away (especially the rear-wheel drive ones) and I've seen people stranded on inclines.
Quite simply, people need to get to work. Most employers do not give free days for people who claim they can't get in and most of us cannot afford to have a day unpaid.
Where are you Gloucestershire County Council? Where are the gritters? Are you going to make excuses? Are the managers going to claim lack of funding or equipment? Are you going to claim that you don't have enough staff?
I'm sorry but this situation is unacceptable. If gritting doesn't work because of the temperatures then do something else. Get snow-ploughs out; pay farmers to plow roads; get your staff (including managers) out with shovels at major junctions to clear the ice away; give us grit so we can treat our own roads; switch traffic lights off since people can't stop anyway and when they do they can't pull away. Just do something and don't make crap excuses!
Wednesday 15 December 2010
So what should we cut?
More boring opinions on the bbc news web site about why the government should or should not cut certain budgets. My simple response to most people? What on earth are they supposed to do?
It is all very well saying we shouldn't cut X or Y because they are really useful and no-doubt they are. We can all claim that the benefit to society is large for the investment but sadly people, in reality, these things cost money and not only do we not have any, we owe so much money to our creditors that we have to find £132M per DAY on top of our budget to pay for things (and getting worse under Labour). Even if one of these systems is ONLY £2M per year - small in the scheme of it, it is £2M less than what we spend at the minute. There is no one place we can cut enough money to save what we need to save. People revolt at the thought of more tax (and income tax penalises working people more than people on benefits) so what are we supposed to do? Don't bother rioting and protesting, the money is not being held back, it simply doesn't exist, it is CREDIT.
The other thing you sometimes hear is people saying that the government could pay less into something like Trident submarines or Aircraft Carriers and to an extent this is true but again the reality is much more complex. Large contracts are agreed in these industries so that large companies don't invest millions to build something that is then cancelled. If it costs almost as much to build something as to cancel then you have to go ahead. That is a reality of government that, to be honest, most people have absolutely no idea about (even people going for election who make all sorts of promises about what they will or won't do).
Another argument is very weak and concerns things like MPs claiming too much expenses where to be honest, it is such small potatos that people's assumption that it could pay for all the shortfall is incredibly naive. Sure there is waste and sure we should do something about it but only in conjunction with everything else.
If your 18 year old son earned £12K per year and owed £6000 to a credit card and started talking about borrowing more money or simply spending more than he was earning so he couldn't afford to pay the credit card back, you would tell him he was foolish even if he told you this new laptop would REALLY help him with something. That is where our government is so please stop complaining about a situation that the current government has to deal with as best as possible, stop accusing them of Conservative austerity (especially since Labour got us in a mess during times when we had money to save as a country) and try doing things for yourself instead!
Maybe I should work for the Daily Mail!
It is all very well saying we shouldn't cut X or Y because they are really useful and no-doubt they are. We can all claim that the benefit to society is large for the investment but sadly people, in reality, these things cost money and not only do we not have any, we owe so much money to our creditors that we have to find £132M per DAY on top of our budget to pay for things (and getting worse under Labour). Even if one of these systems is ONLY £2M per year - small in the scheme of it, it is £2M less than what we spend at the minute. There is no one place we can cut enough money to save what we need to save. People revolt at the thought of more tax (and income tax penalises working people more than people on benefits) so what are we supposed to do? Don't bother rioting and protesting, the money is not being held back, it simply doesn't exist, it is CREDIT.
The other thing you sometimes hear is people saying that the government could pay less into something like Trident submarines or Aircraft Carriers and to an extent this is true but again the reality is much more complex. Large contracts are agreed in these industries so that large companies don't invest millions to build something that is then cancelled. If it costs almost as much to build something as to cancel then you have to go ahead. That is a reality of government that, to be honest, most people have absolutely no idea about (even people going for election who make all sorts of promises about what they will or won't do).
Another argument is very weak and concerns things like MPs claiming too much expenses where to be honest, it is such small potatos that people's assumption that it could pay for all the shortfall is incredibly naive. Sure there is waste and sure we should do something about it but only in conjunction with everything else.
If your 18 year old son earned £12K per year and owed £6000 to a credit card and started talking about borrowing more money or simply spending more than he was earning so he couldn't afford to pay the credit card back, you would tell him he was foolish even if he told you this new laptop would REALLY help him with something. That is where our government is so please stop complaining about a situation that the current government has to deal with as best as possible, stop accusing them of Conservative austerity (especially since Labour got us in a mess during times when we had money to save as a country) and try doing things for yourself instead!
Maybe I should work for the Daily Mail!
Tuesday 14 December 2010
Local Decisions or National Decisions?
I was just reading the debate about the "de-centralisation" of government starting to happen under the new government. What is funny-ironic is that the plethora of opinions about the subject prove the whole problem with the debate - too many opinions.
It might be stating the obvious but it is too common for people with important roles to miss these important facets to goverment whether local or national.
Firstly, the national government is useful for providing management over a larger geographical area. Railways and motorways cannot be managed locally because they are too large. Likewise for more localised services, these are too far removed from central government and are better handled locally to suit localised needs. The needs in the Highlands of Scotland are not the same as those in London. However, the real crunch point is that there is no black and white line between what should be managed locally and what should be managed nationally. Traffic lights on motorways although part of a larger plan can cause problems locally so the local is affected by decisions made hundreds of miles away.
Of course, the other problem whether local or national is how you decide on actions to carry out. Should this building be allowed planning permission? Well the people who live nearby probably say no, the council should not reasonably object and if there is something commerical involved, the council will want the extra money that it will bring in to the area ditto for schools, hospitals and industrial estates.
This then alludes to the age-old question as to who decides? How do you give weight or merit to someones opinion? If I object to a gas pumping station because it will "spoil the countryside", especially if I live nearby, is my opinion anything other than a "not in my backyard" (nimby) view or is it reasonable and important? Of course, one of the things that should happen is people should not be allowed to object without alternatives. You should not be allowed to object to a building or planning application etc without specifying what the applicant can do instead. For instance, "they should build it on that land instead of in the country" which the applicant can counter with, "that would cost £50M more" which leads to objective argument. If people object to a planning application such as "I don't want him to build an extension, he should buy a larger house elsewhere", then the objection might be upheld even if the house move would cost more.
It might be stating the obvious but it is too common for people with important roles to miss these important facets to goverment whether local or national.
Firstly, the national government is useful for providing management over a larger geographical area. Railways and motorways cannot be managed locally because they are too large. Likewise for more localised services, these are too far removed from central government and are better handled locally to suit localised needs. The needs in the Highlands of Scotland are not the same as those in London. However, the real crunch point is that there is no black and white line between what should be managed locally and what should be managed nationally. Traffic lights on motorways although part of a larger plan can cause problems locally so the local is affected by decisions made hundreds of miles away.
Of course, the other problem whether local or national is how you decide on actions to carry out. Should this building be allowed planning permission? Well the people who live nearby probably say no, the council should not reasonably object and if there is something commerical involved, the council will want the extra money that it will bring in to the area ditto for schools, hospitals and industrial estates.
This then alludes to the age-old question as to who decides? How do you give weight or merit to someones opinion? If I object to a gas pumping station because it will "spoil the countryside", especially if I live nearby, is my opinion anything other than a "not in my backyard" (nimby) view or is it reasonable and important? Of course, one of the things that should happen is people should not be allowed to object without alternatives. You should not be allowed to object to a building or planning application etc without specifying what the applicant can do instead. For instance, "they should build it on that land instead of in the country" which the applicant can counter with, "that would cost £50M more" which leads to objective argument. If people object to a planning application such as "I don't want him to build an extension, he should buy a larger house elsewhere", then the objection might be upheld even if the house move would cost more.
Monday 13 December 2010
Water in your engine
My brother's car has problems with the cooling system in the engine but how many of you know how the whole cooling thing works? What's the difference between the thermostat and the fan switch? What is the radiator for and why isn't it always hot?
As you might imagine, water is used to keep the engine block cool since all those miniature explosions cause heat build-up which if uncontrolled would quickly lead to the engine going out of shape and things going bang. Something that is important however is that we don't want the engine to be too cold either. Too cold and the oil does not flow well and also the engine parts are not at design temperature causing leaking of fluids around pistons which makes the engine less efficient.
The block is simply not able to regulate its temperature. Although you could design it well for moving, if you were stuck in traffic, there would be little moving air and quick failure of the engine.
OK, if we add water to the engine and make it circulate via a radiator, this allows us to cool the engine. We need a pump - called the water pump - to be fixed directly to the engine so that it always turns when the engine turns. It doesn't have to be very big and will probably be fitted directly to the engine block where the large rubber hose is. This will pump the water to the top of the radiator where it will naturally cool and fall through the radiator where it will return to the engine block. As mentioned before, in traffic where there is a lot of heat build up and little cooling, a fan-switch in the side of the radiator will switch on and cause the fan to pull larger amounts of air across the radiator causing it to cool quickly. Some cars have more than one fan and more than one switch. The fan should always be able to keep the engine cool (well 80-90 degrees!) even when staionary.
Remember how we also don't want the engine too cold? Well there is another gadget in the circuit called a thermostat. This remains closed when the engine water is cool and ensures the water in the engine does not go to the radiator, it just circulates round the engine. This allows the engine to warm up as quickly as possible without cooling it right from the word "go". Once the water gets hotter (because the engine has warmed up) the thermostat opens and allows the water into the radiator.
OK so how can we fault-find?
As you might imagine, water is used to keep the engine block cool since all those miniature explosions cause heat build-up which if uncontrolled would quickly lead to the engine going out of shape and things going bang. Something that is important however is that we don't want the engine to be too cold either. Too cold and the oil does not flow well and also the engine parts are not at design temperature causing leaking of fluids around pistons which makes the engine less efficient.
The block is simply not able to regulate its temperature. Although you could design it well for moving, if you were stuck in traffic, there would be little moving air and quick failure of the engine.
OK, if we add water to the engine and make it circulate via a radiator, this allows us to cool the engine. We need a pump - called the water pump - to be fixed directly to the engine so that it always turns when the engine turns. It doesn't have to be very big and will probably be fitted directly to the engine block where the large rubber hose is. This will pump the water to the top of the radiator where it will naturally cool and fall through the radiator where it will return to the engine block. As mentioned before, in traffic where there is a lot of heat build up and little cooling, a fan-switch in the side of the radiator will switch on and cause the fan to pull larger amounts of air across the radiator causing it to cool quickly. Some cars have more than one fan and more than one switch. The fan should always be able to keep the engine cool (well 80-90 degrees!) even when staionary.
Remember how we also don't want the engine too cold? Well there is another gadget in the circuit called a thermostat. This remains closed when the engine water is cool and ensures the water in the engine does not go to the radiator, it just circulates round the engine. This allows the engine to warm up as quickly as possible without cooling it right from the word "go". Once the water gets hotter (because the engine has warmed up) the thermostat opens and allows the water into the radiator.
OK so how can we fault-find?
- Please don't burn yourself! The engine can get to around 100 degrees C or more if the cooling is not working properly.
- Does the water system have enough water in it? There should be a small expansion tank under the bonnet with min and max marks on it (and dirty looking water). You need some space to allow for expansion and steam build-up so don't overfill it.
- If your car overheats, does the hose to the radiator and the radiator itself get hot? If neither then the thermostat might be broken or seized. If the hose is hot but not the radiator then the thermostat is open and possibly the water pump itself is not working.
- If the radiator is hot but you are still overheating then perhaps the fan-switch (or less commonly the fan itself) has broken/fuse blown. You can check this with a multi-meter if you have basic electrical skills.
- If all is hot and the fan is switching in but you are still overheating then there might be a blockage in the water system, especially if someone has used "Rad weld" incorrectly to attempt to fix a hole in the radiator. This would cause the water to circulate poorly and therefore the cooling to be less than 100%.
- Worst case and the garage will have to strip the engine down which is not going to be cheap especially since anything that breaks in the process needs repairing (and things will usually break!) and anything else they find will be recommended for repair (broken piston rings etc).
Tuesday 7 December 2010
Pressure in your heating system
If you have a combi-boiler, chances are your heating system is unvented and pressurised. If the pressure drops, this can cause inefficient heating and ultimately the boiler should detect low pressure and shut down.
Why is the system pressurised? Basically to allow air to be purged from the selaed system as the water circulates and to prevent the system taking in air which can cause the pump to run dry and burn out.
How much? In most domestic systems, 1-2 bar is normal but this can increase slightly when the water is hot.
How can I tell what the pressure is? Your boiler should have a small pressure gauge fitted, usually on the front panel and marked green and red for the acceptable range of system pressure.
How can I increase it/top it up? There is usually a flexible filling loop under the boiler with a valve at one or both ends. It should by law contain a non-return valve so that the water in the heating system cannot go back into the drinking water main. By opening these valves, water from the mains (usually 3-5 bar pressure) will go into the heating system and increase the pressure until it reaches 1-2 bar when you close the valves. When you first do this into an empty system. it can take a while to fill up, especially as you bleed radiators and any auto-vents release trapped air.
Why does my pressure go up a lot when the heating is on? There is a pressure vessel inside the combi which is supposed to balance the pressure of the water so that as the pressure increases due to heat, this vessel expands and avoids the system becoming over-stressed. If this vessel is broken or the "charge" in it has leaked out, then it won't do its job and any increase in pressure due to heating will be reflected on the gauge.
Why is the pressure dropping over time? Either the system was never bled properly and the air is slowly working its way out of the system or you have a leak. The leak might only be in one place and of course could be under a floor. It is also possible that a faulty boiler is causing the water to boil and the leak is actually steam being vented from a safety valve. This is hard to check but if the flow pipe from your boiler is stupidly hot, you might want to get a plumber to check it. Basically the flow temperature should be touchable briefly without burning yourself (about 70 degrees) and the return temperature should be virtually holdable (about 60).
Why is the system pressurised? Basically to allow air to be purged from the selaed system as the water circulates and to prevent the system taking in air which can cause the pump to run dry and burn out.
How much? In most domestic systems, 1-2 bar is normal but this can increase slightly when the water is hot.
How can I tell what the pressure is? Your boiler should have a small pressure gauge fitted, usually on the front panel and marked green and red for the acceptable range of system pressure.
How can I increase it/top it up? There is usually a flexible filling loop under the boiler with a valve at one or both ends. It should by law contain a non-return valve so that the water in the heating system cannot go back into the drinking water main. By opening these valves, water from the mains (usually 3-5 bar pressure) will go into the heating system and increase the pressure until it reaches 1-2 bar when you close the valves. When you first do this into an empty system. it can take a while to fill up, especially as you bleed radiators and any auto-vents release trapped air.
Why does my pressure go up a lot when the heating is on? There is a pressure vessel inside the combi which is supposed to balance the pressure of the water so that as the pressure increases due to heat, this vessel expands and avoids the system becoming over-stressed. If this vessel is broken or the "charge" in it has leaked out, then it won't do its job and any increase in pressure due to heating will be reflected on the gauge.
Why is the pressure dropping over time? Either the system was never bled properly and the air is slowly working its way out of the system or you have a leak. The leak might only be in one place and of course could be under a floor. It is also possible that a faulty boiler is causing the water to boil and the leak is actually steam being vented from a safety valve. This is hard to check but if the flow pipe from your boiler is stupidly hot, you might want to get a plumber to check it. Basically the flow temperature should be touchable briefly without burning yourself (about 70 degrees) and the return temperature should be virtually holdable (about 60).
Thursday 2 December 2010
Indirect Taxation and Olympics etc
6 years ago when we were all supposed to "Back the Bid" for the 2012 Olympics, we were told it was a no-brainer. Despite the fact that most of the population were somewhere between indifferent and anti-Olympic hosting, we won the bid and committed to spending 10 billion to build all the infrastructure (although surprise, surprise, the initial figure was much lower!).
We were told that it would not only bring a good feeling but would bring much needed investment into sports and the areas that would be used. The stupid thing was, this "investment" was our tax pounds! So the Olympics didn't bring any investment it was just a ploy for the government to spend more money and pretend they were supporting the country.
Anyway, today I realised another subtle economic issue which has avoided the headlines. We could be convinced that all the money brought in by foreign visitors goes to "the country" and this injection of money is good for the country but the truth is this money does not go to "the country" it goes to a handful of companies that are involved in the Olympics and actually costs money to the rest of us who are not involved in any way, it is indirect taxation, it is moving money from all taxpayers into the hands of a few people. Nice. Again, this wouldn't be the end of the world since you could argue overall that society would benefit by foreign money but another trick has been missed. This money that has been spent is not our money, it is BORROWED from foreign banks and countries. This means that not only do we have to pay this money back to the foreign country, but we also have to pay back massive amounts of interest on top of it. This would be perhaps ok if we didn't have much national debt and could pay it back in a year but the government is riddled with debts and massive interest payments (£132M per day!) so how much will this £10 billion end up costing us if it takes 10 years to pay back? Another £1 billion? More? How does that compare to the amount that foreign visitors will bring in when they visit the Olympics? Is it still worth it?
No, probably not, but it was the way for the government to find support in our hard-working and under-valued athletes and abuse their energies and popularity to draw attention away from a sloppy Labour government who didn't have the money to back the bid in the first place.
As always, we were the ones at fault because we were sucked into the hype and didn't consider the results before all the hundreds of people started waving banners saying, "Back the Bid". Shame on us.
We were told that it would not only bring a good feeling but would bring much needed investment into sports and the areas that would be used. The stupid thing was, this "investment" was our tax pounds! So the Olympics didn't bring any investment it was just a ploy for the government to spend more money and pretend they were supporting the country.
Anyway, today I realised another subtle economic issue which has avoided the headlines. We could be convinced that all the money brought in by foreign visitors goes to "the country" and this injection of money is good for the country but the truth is this money does not go to "the country" it goes to a handful of companies that are involved in the Olympics and actually costs money to the rest of us who are not involved in any way, it is indirect taxation, it is moving money from all taxpayers into the hands of a few people. Nice. Again, this wouldn't be the end of the world since you could argue overall that society would benefit by foreign money but another trick has been missed. This money that has been spent is not our money, it is BORROWED from foreign banks and countries. This means that not only do we have to pay this money back to the foreign country, but we also have to pay back massive amounts of interest on top of it. This would be perhaps ok if we didn't have much national debt and could pay it back in a year but the government is riddled with debts and massive interest payments (£132M per day!) so how much will this £10 billion end up costing us if it takes 10 years to pay back? Another £1 billion? More? How does that compare to the amount that foreign visitors will bring in when they visit the Olympics? Is it still worth it?
No, probably not, but it was the way for the government to find support in our hard-working and under-valued athletes and abuse their energies and popularity to draw attention away from a sloppy Labour government who didn't have the money to back the bid in the first place.
As always, we were the ones at fault because we were sucked into the hype and didn't consider the results before all the hundreds of people started waving banners saying, "Back the Bid". Shame on us.
Heating Efficiency
Whether you are heating hot water for the sink/bath or radiators for your heating, the same basic rules apply and if you understand these, it will help you decide what system is the most efficient or the most cost effective. Generally the two are related but there are two other factors that need to be considered. The general expression to understand efficiency is:
Hopefully most of these will make sense but what is worth noting is that some of these you have control over and some you don't.
The Average Energy Unit Cost (£/Kwh) is the amount it costs you for 1 unit of energy (gas/oil/electricity) for your system. Although the unit costs are different for each fuel type (and bottled gas is more expensive than mains gas) the unfortunate truth is these prices generally increase all the time so an average cannot really be based on todays price but perhaps double todays rate for something that might last 20 years.
The Size of system (Kw) is not something that is likely to vary, you need X amount of heat for a given size building and trying to save some money here is unlikely to be helpful. Likewise a bona-fide heating engineer should not over-spec the system so much that it costs you lots)
Time used (Hrs) is something that you can vary. This is the total hours over the lifetime of the system. For example 20 years at 8 hours per day over 6 winter/spring months = 29,200 hours. Obviously the less the system is running, the cheaper it will cost. It is NEVER cheaper to keep the system on 24 hours as opposed to letting it cool down during the day if you are out. Work out roughly how long it takes to heat up from cold (usually about an hour) and time it to come on. The system loses less energy when it is colder so it is more efficient.
Efficiency is a ratio of how much energy you put in via your energy source is turned into heat. Electrical appliances might be close to 100% efficient. Gas systems vary from around 70% to 90% but should be specified on the boiler on in the boiler manual.
The installation cost (£) is a one-off but is usually higher for gas systems which require gas work, plumbing and water whereas electrical systems are easier to install. If you are considering work, there is no harm in getting a few prices for electrical vs gas to see what the difference is here. It is also worth mentioning that you might want to spend extra on a system which will involve a longer payback period but which is more efficient just to lessen your reliance on fuel and the price increases.
Maintenance Cost (£) is something else worth considering. Electrical heating is often fit-and-forget and you generally don't get these units regularly serviced (unless you are a school/hospital in which case proactive work might benefit) whereas a boiler is worth having serviced once per year to ensure it is in good condition. You can find out how much a single service or an ongoing contract costs by contacting a plumber or gas company like British Gas.
My own view is that electricity will eventually be cheaper than gas since natural gas is running out whereas electricity can be produced using renewables and nuclear. However, for the time being, I like gas systems. They are well understood and you can fit a lot of heating power into a smaller space. I also like the idea, however, of keeping hot water cylinders (which most people remove) and using solar panels and wood-burning stoves to heat water in order to save gas or electricity costs.
Total Cost = (Average Energy Unit Cost x Size of system x Time used x Efficiency) + Installation Cost + Maintenance Cost
Hopefully most of these will make sense but what is worth noting is that some of these you have control over and some you don't.
The Average Energy Unit Cost (£/Kwh) is the amount it costs you for 1 unit of energy (gas/oil/electricity) for your system. Although the unit costs are different for each fuel type (and bottled gas is more expensive than mains gas) the unfortunate truth is these prices generally increase all the time so an average cannot really be based on todays price but perhaps double todays rate for something that might last 20 years.
The Size of system (Kw) is not something that is likely to vary, you need X amount of heat for a given size building and trying to save some money here is unlikely to be helpful. Likewise a bona-fide heating engineer should not over-spec the system so much that it costs you lots)
Time used (Hrs) is something that you can vary. This is the total hours over the lifetime of the system. For example 20 years at 8 hours per day over 6 winter/spring months = 29,200 hours. Obviously the less the system is running, the cheaper it will cost. It is NEVER cheaper to keep the system on 24 hours as opposed to letting it cool down during the day if you are out. Work out roughly how long it takes to heat up from cold (usually about an hour) and time it to come on. The system loses less energy when it is colder so it is more efficient.
Efficiency is a ratio of how much energy you put in via your energy source is turned into heat. Electrical appliances might be close to 100% efficient. Gas systems vary from around 70% to 90% but should be specified on the boiler on in the boiler manual.
The installation cost (£) is a one-off but is usually higher for gas systems which require gas work, plumbing and water whereas electrical systems are easier to install. If you are considering work, there is no harm in getting a few prices for electrical vs gas to see what the difference is here. It is also worth mentioning that you might want to spend extra on a system which will involve a longer payback period but which is more efficient just to lessen your reliance on fuel and the price increases.
Maintenance Cost (£) is something else worth considering. Electrical heating is often fit-and-forget and you generally don't get these units regularly serviced (unless you are a school/hospital in which case proactive work might benefit) whereas a boiler is worth having serviced once per year to ensure it is in good condition. You can find out how much a single service or an ongoing contract costs by contacting a plumber or gas company like British Gas.
My own view is that electricity will eventually be cheaper than gas since natural gas is running out whereas electricity can be produced using renewables and nuclear. However, for the time being, I like gas systems. They are well understood and you can fit a lot of heating power into a smaller space. I also like the idea, however, of keeping hot water cylinders (which most people remove) and using solar panels and wood-burning stoves to heat water in order to save gas or electricity costs.
Friday 29 October 2010
The world we live in
Nice quote today from Virgin Airlines chief commercial officer in response to the idea of flight tax increasing: "family holidays are an essential part of family life" (can't find the actual quote now the article has changed) (and the rise in taxes will stop them etc).
OK, she has a vested interest in sound bites and headlines but really? 1) Holidays do NOT have to be taken on airlines 2) Holidays do NOT have to be taken at all 3) They are definitely not essential seeing as most people in the world do not take holidays 4) Although tax is annoying, another £120 for a family of 4 to Australia which is probably already costing at least £4000 is not going to make or break the decision to go.
Keep it in perspective people, airlines have avoided tax for ages even though they affect the climate much more than car travel, which is already heavily taxed.
OK, she has a vested interest in sound bites and headlines but really? 1) Holidays do NOT have to be taken on airlines 2) Holidays do NOT have to be taken at all 3) They are definitely not essential seeing as most people in the world do not take holidays 4) Although tax is annoying, another £120 for a family of 4 to Australia which is probably already costing at least £4000 is not going to make or break the decision to go.
Keep it in perspective people, airlines have avoided tax for ages even though they affect the climate much more than car travel, which is already heavily taxed.
Monday 4 October 2010
What is fair?
I have been reading about the governments plans to stop child benefit for people earning more than about £44K per year and more specifically people's reactions to it. Ignoring the fact that it is a single individual earning more than 44K rather than the joint earnings of a household (although how do you find that out in modern-day marriage-less Britain?) I am interested in people over-using the word "fair". It's not fair, it's not fair!
What is fair? In a totally un-moderated market, I would earn as much as I can. Add in the idea of government and we have to pay taxes. If you pay by a flat percentage, already the system can be accused of being "unfair". If we all benefit more-or-less equally from the government services, why should I pay twice as much as someone who earns half as much money? So OK, let me accept that a percentage is not unreasonable, we then look at various other factors. We have a tax code which gives us £7000ish tax-free each year. This means that the less you earn, the less tax you pay (you pay tax on a lower percentage of your salary) is that fair? Then there are benefits which are paid to various people out of work totalling a large percentage of tax money, why should I have to pay for all the people who don't work? Is that fair? Then we have to gall to raise the tax rate above a certain amount (more than I earn btw!) so that people who are fortunate to earn lots of money have almost half of that taken away to pay for things which other people are using - is that fair? I am single and rarely have any medical help, is it fair that I am paying for a household worth of rubbish collection, schools and elderly care that I don't use while others who earn nothing are getting £1000s of benefits from my taxes?
It seems that "fair" to most people is that if I get more, that's fair but if I get less that isn't fair. "It isn't fair that someone earns a million pounds per year" (although most people wouldn't give their money away if they earned that much!) "It isn't fair that these government proposals hit the poorest the hardest" (despite the poorest already getting a massive load of free benefits.
Here's a newsflash - life isn't fair. I have so little money after paying my bills, I'm worse off than many low-income families despite earning more than the national average wage. The day when someone on benefits has more disposable income than me is pretty sad but I count my blessings and soldier on. I just wish all these "it's not fair" people would shut up and take responsiblity but a state benefit system will never encourage that to happen, only when people have to give in order to receive will they appreciate something and have the self-respect that they have earned it.
What is fair? In a totally un-moderated market, I would earn as much as I can. Add in the idea of government and we have to pay taxes. If you pay by a flat percentage, already the system can be accused of being "unfair". If we all benefit more-or-less equally from the government services, why should I pay twice as much as someone who earns half as much money? So OK, let me accept that a percentage is not unreasonable, we then look at various other factors. We have a tax code which gives us £7000ish tax-free each year. This means that the less you earn, the less tax you pay (you pay tax on a lower percentage of your salary) is that fair? Then there are benefits which are paid to various people out of work totalling a large percentage of tax money, why should I have to pay for all the people who don't work? Is that fair? Then we have to gall to raise the tax rate above a certain amount (more than I earn btw!) so that people who are fortunate to earn lots of money have almost half of that taken away to pay for things which other people are using - is that fair? I am single and rarely have any medical help, is it fair that I am paying for a household worth of rubbish collection, schools and elderly care that I don't use while others who earn nothing are getting £1000s of benefits from my taxes?
It seems that "fair" to most people is that if I get more, that's fair but if I get less that isn't fair. "It isn't fair that someone earns a million pounds per year" (although most people wouldn't give their money away if they earned that much!) "It isn't fair that these government proposals hit the poorest the hardest" (despite the poorest already getting a massive load of free benefits.
Here's a newsflash - life isn't fair. I have so little money after paying my bills, I'm worse off than many low-income families despite earning more than the national average wage. The day when someone on benefits has more disposable income than me is pretty sad but I count my blessings and soldier on. I just wish all these "it's not fair" people would shut up and take responsiblity but a state benefit system will never encourage that to happen, only when people have to give in order to receive will they appreciate something and have the self-respect that they have earned it.
Thursday 23 September 2010
Another sad, unqualified statement
I was reading about the Thanet offshore windfarm, the largest in the UK and read one of those classic unhelpful statements, "The Thanet offshore wind farm will create enough renewable energy to power 240,000 homes."
The problem with that statement is it doesn't say 1) Whether this takes into account the fact that wind turbines might only run at about 10% installed capacity (a 2GW turbine only produces an average 200MW over a year) 2) Whether it is the best case scenario i.e. at 100% of operating output (I doubt it, that wouldn't sound very impressive) and 3) what other allowances it might take into account such as the number of turbines that might be disabled for maintenance at any one point.
The sad fact is 240,000 homes is not a great number, it is only a 3rd of Kent's homes (assuming they are 'average' in size) and bearing in mind that, particularly in winter, the farm could produce nothing for days at a time, the 40 year lifespan and the £780M cost, it is hard to determine whether this is really value for money.
Sadly these things all sound great, they are "renewable" but we must look beyond the warm feeling we get by not burning fuel and consider the inconvenience of variable output electrical plants and work out the real economics. I for one would not like to see electricity increase by 10 times the price just to pay for these "green" energies when compared to other methods.
The problem with that statement is it doesn't say 1) Whether this takes into account the fact that wind turbines might only run at about 10% installed capacity (a 2GW turbine only produces an average 200MW over a year) 2) Whether it is the best case scenario i.e. at 100% of operating output (I doubt it, that wouldn't sound very impressive) and 3) what other allowances it might take into account such as the number of turbines that might be disabled for maintenance at any one point.
The sad fact is 240,000 homes is not a great number, it is only a 3rd of Kent's homes (assuming they are 'average' in size) and bearing in mind that, particularly in winter, the farm could produce nothing for days at a time, the 40 year lifespan and the £780M cost, it is hard to determine whether this is really value for money.
Sadly these things all sound great, they are "renewable" but we must look beyond the warm feeling we get by not burning fuel and consider the inconvenience of variable output electrical plants and work out the real economics. I for one would not like to see electricity increase by 10 times the price just to pay for these "green" energies when compared to other methods.
Wednesday 15 September 2010
The weakness with statistics
I was wondering the other day whether statistics have any real value other than providing points of arguing. For instance you could claim that the government should invest more in X than Y since your survey says that twice as many people like X than Y, case proven! I have already blogged about the problem with the lack of ability to say "no" in surveys. In the example of the Olympics, saying that 500,000 people signed a petition asking for the Olympics is impressive unless you have the chance to report that 45 million didn't want it.
Another thing that has come up recently however is the weakness of survey questions. An article I read on the BBC news site was talking about how the "don't knows" might not be people who don't care as much as people who can't answer the question because they are not sure quite what it means.
Consider the question, "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?" (taken from the National Centre for Social Research). A typical type of survey question whose data will end up somewhere important. But the answer is not necessarily straight-forward. If you are an atheist, the answer is simple, if you are Muslim or even Catholic, the answer is probably also straight-forward. But think about a bog-standard Christian. Firstly I don't call my faith a religion because religion to me is not synonymous with faith and is not what I practice (even though I call myself a Christian). Also, even if I do consider my Christianity a religion or understand that the question probably does not make the distinction that I do, do I belong to a particular religion? How particular? I am a Christian but do not call myself Anglican or Evangelical so should I answer "No" because I am not particular?
The problem for statistics involving large numbers of people is that if 30% of Christians say, "No" to the above question, the figures might suggest that the number of Christians is only 70% of the actual figure and then this figure is used to derive all sorts of "scientific" conclusions.
No doubt some people are supposed to be experts in these things but I would suggest any self-respecting information expert reject attempting to make any conclusions based on questions that are hard to decipher or at least provide a box labelled, "I am not sure I understand the question" which allows us to distinguish "I don't care" from "I'm not sure".
Another thing that has come up recently however is the weakness of survey questions. An article I read on the BBC news site was talking about how the "don't knows" might not be people who don't care as much as people who can't answer the question because they are not sure quite what it means.
Consider the question, "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?" (taken from the National Centre for Social Research). A typical type of survey question whose data will end up somewhere important. But the answer is not necessarily straight-forward. If you are an atheist, the answer is simple, if you are Muslim or even Catholic, the answer is probably also straight-forward. But think about a bog-standard Christian. Firstly I don't call my faith a religion because religion to me is not synonymous with faith and is not what I practice (even though I call myself a Christian). Also, even if I do consider my Christianity a religion or understand that the question probably does not make the distinction that I do, do I belong to a particular religion? How particular? I am a Christian but do not call myself Anglican or Evangelical so should I answer "No" because I am not particular?
The problem for statistics involving large numbers of people is that if 30% of Christians say, "No" to the above question, the figures might suggest that the number of Christians is only 70% of the actual figure and then this figure is used to derive all sorts of "scientific" conclusions.
No doubt some people are supposed to be experts in these things but I would suggest any self-respecting information expert reject attempting to make any conclusions based on questions that are hard to decipher or at least provide a box labelled, "I am not sure I understand the question" which allows us to distinguish "I don't care" from "I'm not sure".
Thursday 9 September 2010
Free Speech (or not)
I was reading about the US pastor who has organised a book burning of the Koran on September the 11th, "It is possibly time for us in a new way to actually stand up, confront terrorism". I really don't know whether his event could actually have any genuine benefit other than stirring up hatred but it certainly does raise interesting questions about free speech. Of course, it is not just his speech which will cause trouble but the excessive use of that 'freedom' to go into the realms of provocation but is this wrong?
What exactly is free-speech? In a sense we do not have free speech in the UK. I can be charged with "inciting racial hatred" and presumably various homophobic speech crimes which can be a very broad brush against my supposed "right" to express my own opinion.
The origins of the idea of free speech come from various political and religious attempts to silence dissenters under the legal system which would then prevent the intended operation of democracy where the voice of the population could be silenced by a miniority only because they happened to be in government.
I guess the question is, where does this freedom end and responsibility begin? It is all very well saying, "I think Islam is a terrorist religion" and leaving it at that but I guess this guy thinks unless he ups the ante, he won't get enough people to agree with him to do something about it (whatever that might be).
Look at Nelson Mandela. Back in the day he was accused of terrorism and inciting violence and hatred but his cause has only been redeemed over time and he presumably argued that he had no choice to change the system in any other way. I guess pastor Terry Jones thinks the same thing.
Will time show him to be correct or will he simply get silenced by those who preach tolerance and freedom as the tenets of civilisation on the one hand and yet avoiding conflict with anyone who might not agree!?
I guess I have that niggling conflict, "why does the pastor have to tolerate Islam but Muslims do not have to tolerate him"?
What exactly is free-speech? In a sense we do not have free speech in the UK. I can be charged with "inciting racial hatred" and presumably various homophobic speech crimes which can be a very broad brush against my supposed "right" to express my own opinion.
The origins of the idea of free speech come from various political and religious attempts to silence dissenters under the legal system which would then prevent the intended operation of democracy where the voice of the population could be silenced by a miniority only because they happened to be in government.
I guess the question is, where does this freedom end and responsibility begin? It is all very well saying, "I think Islam is a terrorist religion" and leaving it at that but I guess this guy thinks unless he ups the ante, he won't get enough people to agree with him to do something about it (whatever that might be).
Look at Nelson Mandela. Back in the day he was accused of terrorism and inciting violence and hatred but his cause has only been redeemed over time and he presumably argued that he had no choice to change the system in any other way. I guess pastor Terry Jones thinks the same thing.
Will time show him to be correct or will he simply get silenced by those who preach tolerance and freedom as the tenets of civilisation on the one hand and yet avoiding conflict with anyone who might not agree!?
I guess I have that niggling conflict, "why does the pastor have to tolerate Islam but Muslims do not have to tolerate him"?
Tuesday 7 September 2010
Noise Gates - Attack, hold and release
The most advanced settings on the gate relate to attack time, hold and release time. This affect the shape of the gates behaviour.
Let us take our example of a Tom Tom. When you strike it, the initial transient is quite high and then the Tom fades away for a time depending on the way it is tuned. This can sound very muddy through a PA system so the gate is often used to try and make the sound much more 'clicky' than it does by default. If however you simply set the threshold for the drum, you might find that the sound is made very short and transient and loses all its resonance since the sound quickly drops back below the threshold. By adjusting the hold time, you are telling the gate to stay open for a short time after the key drops below the threshold (usually micro or milliseconds) and then close. This gives you the basic functionality to allow a little bit of 'ring' from the drum before slamming the gate but then you might have a noticeable slamming of the gate which makes the drum cut off very abruptly and not very musically. What you can do to resolve that is to add a slight release time which slows the shutting of the gate.
The attack time is used less often and is like the opposite of release, it sets the time taken for the gate to fully open and would be used if the level of the sound is sometimes very close to the threshold of the gate and causes noticeable sudden gate opening and stuttering. By slowing the attack time of the gate, you allow more subtle variation but this would not generally be used on transient sounds like drums where you need the gate open as soon as possible to avoid cutting off the transient.
Let us take our example of a Tom Tom. When you strike it, the initial transient is quite high and then the Tom fades away for a time depending on the way it is tuned. This can sound very muddy through a PA system so the gate is often used to try and make the sound much more 'clicky' than it does by default. If however you simply set the threshold for the drum, you might find that the sound is made very short and transient and loses all its resonance since the sound quickly drops back below the threshold. By adjusting the hold time, you are telling the gate to stay open for a short time after the key drops below the threshold (usually micro or milliseconds) and then close. This gives you the basic functionality to allow a little bit of 'ring' from the drum before slamming the gate but then you might have a noticeable slamming of the gate which makes the drum cut off very abruptly and not very musically. What you can do to resolve that is to add a slight release time which slows the shutting of the gate.
The attack time is used less often and is like the opposite of release, it sets the time taken for the gate to fully open and would be used if the level of the sound is sometimes very close to the threshold of the gate and causes noticeable sudden gate opening and stuttering. By slowing the attack time of the gate, you allow more subtle variation but this would not generally be used on transient sounds like drums where you need the gate open as soon as possible to avoid cutting off the transient.
Noise Gates - Frequency control of the key
A common problem when using Gates is that the key signal might be picked up from another sound source and open the gate to the signal you are trying to control, basically this happens when a microphone is picking up something from more than one source unintentionally.
Imagine you are mic-ing up Toms on a drum kit, the chances are that the mic for Tom 1 can also 'hear' Tom 2. You setup a gate on Tom 1 to control the sound of it but when you hit Tom 2, the mic from Tom 1 hears it, opens the gate and allows all the ringing from Tom 1 to be heard unintentionally. You can EQ the channel but the Toms are usually so close in frequency that you can EQ out the unwanted sound of Tom 2.
On some gates, you have the ability to frequency control the key signal, either with a hi-pass and lo-pass filter or with a frequency selector and Q control.
It is important to realise, these settings do NOT alter the frequency of the audio signal, they simply filter the part of it being used to key the gate. By making this as narrow as possible, we can allow the key to respond only to the fundamental frequency of Tom 1 and not to anything overheard from Tom 2 (and likewise for any gates you might have on the other Toms).
You will need to either recognise the rough frequency of the Tom by ear and then use trial and error to set up the unit or you will need a frequency analyser to work it out. You should be able to keep the frequency very narrow since the fundamental frequency of a tom is narrow.
Imagine you are mic-ing up Toms on a drum kit, the chances are that the mic for Tom 1 can also 'hear' Tom 2. You setup a gate on Tom 1 to control the sound of it but when you hit Tom 2, the mic from Tom 1 hears it, opens the gate and allows all the ringing from Tom 1 to be heard unintentionally. You can EQ the channel but the Toms are usually so close in frequency that you can EQ out the unwanted sound of Tom 2.
On some gates, you have the ability to frequency control the key signal, either with a hi-pass and lo-pass filter or with a frequency selector and Q control.
It is important to realise, these settings do NOT alter the frequency of the audio signal, they simply filter the part of it being used to key the gate. By making this as narrow as possible, we can allow the key to respond only to the fundamental frequency of Tom 1 and not to anything overheard from Tom 2 (and likewise for any gates you might have on the other Toms).
You will need to either recognise the rough frequency of the Tom by ear and then use trial and error to set up the unit or you will need a frequency analyser to work it out. You should be able to keep the frequency very narrow since the fundamental frequency of a tom is narrow.
How to use Noise Gates
Noise Gates (or Gates as they are usually called) are pieces of outboard equipment used in PA systems that for some people are mysterious and complicated. I will post a series of articles about these pieces of kit and what they are used for.
Firstly, a gate behaves like it sounds. It electronically shuts a gate across the audio signal going through it so nothing is let through. When a 'key' signal operates the gate, it is opened to let the signal through and when the key is removed, the gate closes again and the signal removed. All of these are configurable to a certain extent depending on what unit you are using.
The key signal can be internal (derived from the audio signal itself) or it can be external (comes from whatever you plug into the back of the unit) but we will assume that all our keying is internal.
The threshold control says at what level the key signal will open the gate, so let us assume we have a Tom from a drum kit through a microphone plugged into our gate. Our gate is set to internal key and the threshold is set to -40db. Somebody hits the drum and very shortly after they hit it, the signal passes -40db and the gate is opened. After the hit, the drum sound fades away and after dropping past the -40db position, the gate is closed again and the remainder of the sound is cut off. This is the most basic operation of a gate.
Now we have looked at the operation, what do we use them for? The two most common uses of gates are 1) To shorten the sound of a ringing (usually) Tom Tom and 2) To remove latent noise on a channel (such as an electric guitar). We will look at the second example first because it is the most simple.
For many electric guitars, because of a love of old technology, valves and single coil pickups, lots of guitar rigs have excessive noise when the guitar is not being played. Left uncontrolled, it is at best annoying and at worst unprofessional. Add a gate into the channel and you can control the threshold at which this noise is removed by the gate. You might efectively tell the gate to remove anything below -40(ish) db so that when the guitarist actually plays, assuming they never play anything really quietly, the gate will open and when they stop, it will close again.
The same basic setup applies to the Tom Tom but there are problems that you might find with Tom Toms and even with guitars that require slightly more complicated setting up which I will cover in my next post.
Firstly, a gate behaves like it sounds. It electronically shuts a gate across the audio signal going through it so nothing is let through. When a 'key' signal operates the gate, it is opened to let the signal through and when the key is removed, the gate closes again and the signal removed. All of these are configurable to a certain extent depending on what unit you are using.
The key signal can be internal (derived from the audio signal itself) or it can be external (comes from whatever you plug into the back of the unit) but we will assume that all our keying is internal.
The threshold control says at what level the key signal will open the gate, so let us assume we have a Tom from a drum kit through a microphone plugged into our gate. Our gate is set to internal key and the threshold is set to -40db. Somebody hits the drum and very shortly after they hit it, the signal passes -40db and the gate is opened. After the hit, the drum sound fades away and after dropping past the -40db position, the gate is closed again and the remainder of the sound is cut off. This is the most basic operation of a gate.
Now we have looked at the operation, what do we use them for? The two most common uses of gates are 1) To shorten the sound of a ringing (usually) Tom Tom and 2) To remove latent noise on a channel (such as an electric guitar). We will look at the second example first because it is the most simple.
For many electric guitars, because of a love of old technology, valves and single coil pickups, lots of guitar rigs have excessive noise when the guitar is not being played. Left uncontrolled, it is at best annoying and at worst unprofessional. Add a gate into the channel and you can control the threshold at which this noise is removed by the gate. You might efectively tell the gate to remove anything below -40(ish) db so that when the guitarist actually plays, assuming they never play anything really quietly, the gate will open and when they stop, it will close again.
The same basic setup applies to the Tom Tom but there are problems that you might find with Tom Toms and even with guitars that require slightly more complicated setting up which I will cover in my next post.
What can God do through you?
I rarely post actual wisdom on this blog because my life is spent moaning about things but I was talking to a young lad last night who was saying how hard it can be to know whether things like the miraculous actually happen or whether it is just hype.
In a rare-ish moment of wisdom, I asked him, "if you want to know whether the miraculous can happen, what do you do in your life that allows Him to do the miraculous through you?" You can be helped by what God does through others, although sometimes you might not believe it to be true, but only when you experience it first-hand can you really have a faith increase. Sadly for many people, God is simply not given an opportunity for healing/wisdom/knowledge etc so if we disbelieve the miraculous in others, we are left with a very bland view of God in our lives.
What do you do to give God an opportunity to work through you?
In a rare-ish moment of wisdom, I asked him, "if you want to know whether the miraculous can happen, what do you do in your life that allows Him to do the miraculous through you?" You can be helped by what God does through others, although sometimes you might not believe it to be true, but only when you experience it first-hand can you really have a faith increase. Sadly for many people, God is simply not given an opportunity for healing/wisdom/knowledge etc so if we disbelieve the miraculous in others, we are left with a very bland view of God in our lives.
What do you do to give God an opportunity to work through you?
Wednesday 25 August 2010
Everyone should use public transport?
I heard from a friend that the government are toying with taxing business parking to encourage use of public transport. Sadly, it is another example of people in London thinking that everyone else in the country has the same public transport facilities that they do. They are wrong.
For example, my situation is fairly average. I travel 10 miles to work by motorbike, I leave home 30 minutes before work starts and arrive home about 30 minutes after I finish. It costs me around £30/month in petrol. Total time away from home = 9 hours/day
If I were to take the train, I would have to cycle 15 minutes to the station 5 minutes before the train leaves (at 7:57 for a 9:00am start) and then arrive about 15 minutes cycle ride from work at 8:05am. Of course, I could arrange flexi-time (which I wouldn't be given, already been there) but even if I could, there is a return train at 3:20 and then not another one till 17:05 which gets back home at 17:13 for a cycle ride home for around 17:30 assuming there are on time. Total time away from home = 10 hours per day, total cost = £96/month!!
By bus, I would have to walk to town (15mins) for an 8:03 bus and be able to return at 17:53 to town plus another 15 minute walk home. Total time away from home = 10hrs25m cost = £30/month.
Basically, it's not going to happen. There are also people who live much further from public transport than me, who can't cycle for some reason and who travel much greater distances. We are already hit by massive fuel tax so just leave it. Until public transport is improved majorly, it will only ever serve about 10% of the population.
For example, my situation is fairly average. I travel 10 miles to work by motorbike, I leave home 30 minutes before work starts and arrive home about 30 minutes after I finish. It costs me around £30/month in petrol. Total time away from home = 9 hours/day
If I were to take the train, I would have to cycle 15 minutes to the station 5 minutes before the train leaves (at 7:57 for a 9:00am start) and then arrive about 15 minutes cycle ride from work at 8:05am. Of course, I could arrange flexi-time (which I wouldn't be given, already been there) but even if I could, there is a return train at 3:20 and then not another one till 17:05 which gets back home at 17:13 for a cycle ride home for around 17:30 assuming there are on time. Total time away from home = 10 hours per day, total cost = £96/month!!
By bus, I would have to walk to town (15mins) for an 8:03 bus and be able to return at 17:53 to town plus another 15 minute walk home. Total time away from home = 10hrs25m cost = £30/month.
Basically, it's not going to happen. There are also people who live much further from public transport than me, who can't cycle for some reason and who travel much greater distances. We are already hit by massive fuel tax so just leave it. Until public transport is improved majorly, it will only ever serve about 10% of the population.
Thursday 19 August 2010
How to Insulate Your Walls
I read this interesting report about how lots of people who are most interested in saving energy have no idea what saves a lot of energy and what is not worth the hassle.
Anyway, Most of you know to insulate your loft well (fill the bit between the joists to the level and then go across the other way with the wider rolls to make a total of 300mm or more - nice and cheap) but what about windows and walls?
Well double-glazing saves a lot of energy over single-glazing but is expensive both in terms of installation price (I'm sure much more than it needs to be) but also in the energy required to construct the windows so for most people, this means waiting until the windows are broken or doing a few at a time. Leaving the curtains closed after sun-down also helps.
Now to walls. You have lots of construction types including wood, brick and cavity walls (two skins of brick or more commonly brick outside and concrete block inside) also solid concrete. As with most insulation, you should consider all of this to be unacceptably lossy without any insulation and regardless of the fact that 300mm concrete might be more efficient than 200mm brick, it still pays to use a very good insulator such as rigid phenolic insulation (often known by the trade name Kingspan but made by others also).
New houses generally have to use a cavity with 2 inches of rigid insulation in the gap to achieve an acceptable low heat loss but what if you do not have a new house?
If you have a cavity wall, you can opt to fill it with various loose fill materials. This is OK but I'm not convinced it is a good idea (I'm surprised it is even allowed) because it bridges the cavity which is designed primarily to avoid damp penetration (not heat insulation!).
If you want an alternative or have solid walls of any type, you can do one of two things. You can insulate the outside with heat resistant render mix (done by registered installers usually but shop around) or you can insulate the inside of the outside walls with 25 or 50mm rigid insulation either covered by plasterboard or integrated with plasterboard (which is easier but more expensive).
Both of these will make a big difference in heat loss through the walls so find out how much it is to get the work done. A builder or decent decorator will be able to fit the insulation and plasterboard but make sure you get someone who knows how to drywall to finish off the plasterboard.
Anyway, Most of you know to insulate your loft well (fill the bit between the joists to the level and then go across the other way with the wider rolls to make a total of 300mm or more - nice and cheap) but what about windows and walls?
Well double-glazing saves a lot of energy over single-glazing but is expensive both in terms of installation price (I'm sure much more than it needs to be) but also in the energy required to construct the windows so for most people, this means waiting until the windows are broken or doing a few at a time. Leaving the curtains closed after sun-down also helps.
Now to walls. You have lots of construction types including wood, brick and cavity walls (two skins of brick or more commonly brick outside and concrete block inside) also solid concrete. As with most insulation, you should consider all of this to be unacceptably lossy without any insulation and regardless of the fact that 300mm concrete might be more efficient than 200mm brick, it still pays to use a very good insulator such as rigid phenolic insulation (often known by the trade name Kingspan but made by others also).
New houses generally have to use a cavity with 2 inches of rigid insulation in the gap to achieve an acceptable low heat loss but what if you do not have a new house?
If you have a cavity wall, you can opt to fill it with various loose fill materials. This is OK but I'm not convinced it is a good idea (I'm surprised it is even allowed) because it bridges the cavity which is designed primarily to avoid damp penetration (not heat insulation!).
If you want an alternative or have solid walls of any type, you can do one of two things. You can insulate the outside with heat resistant render mix (done by registered installers usually but shop around) or you can insulate the inside of the outside walls with 25 or 50mm rigid insulation either covered by plasterboard or integrated with plasterboard (which is easier but more expensive).
Both of these will make a big difference in heat loss through the walls so find out how much it is to get the work done. A builder or decent decorator will be able to fit the insulation and plasterboard but make sure you get someone who knows how to drywall to finish off the plasterboard.
Thursday 12 August 2010
Closing a credit card account is really easy right?
I've paid off my Santander credit card. I borrowed money from my parents to do it and can pay them back more than they get from an ISA and I pay less interest than a credit card. Part of the reason that I chose to kill this one off was that they put up my interest rate on the card from 18% to 24% just like that (I did have 30 days to pay off the balance of £1,500 though!). I was told this was because of my usage pattern (in other words I was not spending on it so they weren't getting much interest). Even though I spent on it until I got the money to pay it off, I got another letter saying it was going up again. Although the base rate is what 2%? They can get away with upping my rate to 25% just by giving me notice as if I can just pay off the balance if I am unhappy! Pretty outrageous. This at a time when an ISA might give you 4% interest.
Anyway, I rang to close the account and it took a total of about 10 minutes on the phone to get through the rubbish "press 1 for..." menus and then talk to 2 people to close the account. The thing that got me most was after saying I wanted it closed, I was asked if I could hold while it was closed. I asked why, couldn't they just close it for me and I could hang up? Apparently not. I was then on hold for about a minute before being told it had closed. We have computers nowadays, they are supposed to make things quick and easy. Closing an account should be "Does the person owe any more money? No -> Close account" and the computer should do this pretty much instantly. For some completely ironic reason, I could have gone to a branch from home and had a person close the account in less time than it took on the phone (except I probably wouldn't be allowed to close it at a bank or otherwise wait in an incompetent queue).
This country does make me despair when the solutions to these issues are so simple, there are too many incompetent people in management now we have the "too many chiefs model of management" in this country.
Anyway, I rang to close the account and it took a total of about 10 minutes on the phone to get through the rubbish "press 1 for..." menus and then talk to 2 people to close the account. The thing that got me most was after saying I wanted it closed, I was asked if I could hold while it was closed. I asked why, couldn't they just close it for me and I could hang up? Apparently not. I was then on hold for about a minute before being told it had closed. We have computers nowadays, they are supposed to make things quick and easy. Closing an account should be "Does the person owe any more money? No -> Close account" and the computer should do this pretty much instantly. For some completely ironic reason, I could have gone to a branch from home and had a person close the account in less time than it took on the phone (except I probably wouldn't be allowed to close it at a bank or otherwise wait in an incompetent queue).
This country does make me despair when the solutions to these issues are so simple, there are too many incompetent people in management now we have the "too many chiefs model of management" in this country.
Wednesday 11 August 2010
Hats off to you both
Raoul Wallenberg and Wilm Hosenfeld. Hardly household names but people who should be remembered and honoured for showing righteousness in the horrors of world war 2.
Raoul Wallenburg was a Swedish diplomat who at the young age of 32 went to Hungary to save Jews from deportation to certain death. He used a combination of believable (but fake) passport like documents and a lot of swagger and confidence to save over 100,000 Jews by pretending they were protected by Sweden - a country who Germany had to keep sweet since they were supplying the Reich with iron ore. Tales of bravery abound and in around 6 months he had lived a lifetime. Sadly he was arrested by the Russians as a spy shortly afterwards and because of incompetence on the part of Sweden and secrecy on the part of Russia, he was never seen again, believed to have lived for a few decades in Russian prisons and by now presumed dead.
Wilm Hosenfeld was made famous in the film the Pianist when he is shown helping the eponymous character with food and protection despite being a Nazi. It so happened that he was also a devout Catholic and was horrified at treatment of the Jews and saved several Jews and Poles from harm. Sadly again he was whisked away by Russia and died in a prisoner of war camp before the Pianist could come and lobby on his behalf.
We lack many heroes like this nowadays, we worship crap singers and overpaid footballers. It would be great to teach more about these kind of people in schools and have people aspire to true greatness.
Raoul Wallenburg was a Swedish diplomat who at the young age of 32 went to Hungary to save Jews from deportation to certain death. He used a combination of believable (but fake) passport like documents and a lot of swagger and confidence to save over 100,000 Jews by pretending they were protected by Sweden - a country who Germany had to keep sweet since they were supplying the Reich with iron ore. Tales of bravery abound and in around 6 months he had lived a lifetime. Sadly he was arrested by the Russians as a spy shortly afterwards and because of incompetence on the part of Sweden and secrecy on the part of Russia, he was never seen again, believed to have lived for a few decades in Russian prisons and by now presumed dead.
Wilm Hosenfeld was made famous in the film the Pianist when he is shown helping the eponymous character with food and protection despite being a Nazi. It so happened that he was also a devout Catholic and was horrified at treatment of the Jews and saved several Jews and Poles from harm. Sadly again he was whisked away by Russia and died in a prisoner of war camp before the Pianist could come and lobby on his behalf.
We lack many heroes like this nowadays, we worship crap singers and overpaid footballers. It would be great to teach more about these kind of people in schools and have people aspire to true greatness.
Wednesday 7 July 2010
Crap Britain - Cheque Woes
I wanted to pay off a credit card today using money in a current account of another bank. I brought what I thought was my cheque book but it turns out it only had paying in slips left in it. Bit of a pain but I went to Santander and asked if I could pay off the balance using my debit card, "No", I then said I didn't have my cheque book, could I write one on a piece of paper instead? "No", he didn't understand and then said "No chance" he had never even heard of this happening (although a quick scan of the internet shows that other people do!). He suggested getting a cheque from HSBC. I went to HSBC, "can you give me a cashier cheque?", "No but we can give you a bankers draft which is like a cheque and which costs £20", "£20 for a cheque? No thanks", "You could always pay online", "I could always walk in front of a train, not really helpful though, I want to pay it today so I can close it today while I'm in town", "Sorry".
What a load of toss. You can have £1500 in a current account and all the ID and info you could possibly needs and again the computer says "No". Everything takes time or hassle or for things that actually work like a bank wire, you have to pay some ridiculous fee. I fear that unlike some other countries, we still haven't understood that if a computer doesn't make something easier, you should go back to pen and paper!
What a load of toss. You can have £1500 in a current account and all the ID and info you could possibly needs and again the computer says "No". Everything takes time or hassle or for things that actually work like a bank wire, you have to pay some ridiculous fee. I fear that unlike some other countries, we still haven't understood that if a computer doesn't make something easier, you should go back to pen and paper!
Crap Britain Again
I tried to call a restaurant yesterday and the phone range and then sounded like it was answered but I couldn't hear the other person. After trying over a couple of hours, I called the operator on 100 and got someone in India. She told me it was a business line and she would transfer me to business customer services, which she did. Business Customer Services then told me it wasn't a BT line and although she didn't know who was the owner of the line on her screen, she then said even if the info was there, she wouldn't be able to tell me due to Data Protection.
In the end I had to go to the restaurant early to book a table and their phone was actually broken but why is it that our computers and technology have moved on 1000 years in 30 years but our ability to actually solve problems has reduced? Shame on everyone!
In the end I had to go to the restaurant early to book a table and their phone was actually broken but why is it that our computers and technology have moved on 1000 years in 30 years but our ability to actually solve problems has reduced? Shame on everyone!
Tuesday 1 June 2010
Poor quality rears its ugly head - again!
I was just reading the preliminary report into the Potters Bar rail crash: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10203742.stm Despite people who probably just assume that "sometimes things just go wrong and it is sad but true", although surprise, surprise, the initial findings already show this is not the case.
Several people reported problems the night before the crash. One was ignore, one was mis-interpreted and another had been ignored or not handled properly by a train manager. Sorry to bang on about it but the handling of these scenarios is not rocket science, it is not even advanced transport science it is basic quality control and common sense.
How many accidents have we had on the railways and we still cannot handle the basics. Look at Kings Cross - the lessons which could easily have led to this accident being avoided - look at the hundreds of other accidents and there is nothing simpler than having a problem reporting system which follows a small set of bullet points including exactly what the reported problem is, what lines it affects if known and who exactly to call with the reported problem.
People being too busy or too lazy is simply not a problem. You have a simple procedure that people cannot object to and if people don't follow it, they are sacked or prosecuted. Too many excuses, too much finger pointing and too much lack of responsibility are all the things that makes Britain an embarassing place to live and work. The few people who take charge like Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and others are famous just because they do things properly. In the UK it makes them look like saints.
Several people reported problems the night before the crash. One was ignore, one was mis-interpreted and another had been ignored or not handled properly by a train manager. Sorry to bang on about it but the handling of these scenarios is not rocket science, it is not even advanced transport science it is basic quality control and common sense.
How many accidents have we had on the railways and we still cannot handle the basics. Look at Kings Cross - the lessons which could easily have led to this accident being avoided - look at the hundreds of other accidents and there is nothing simpler than having a problem reporting system which follows a small set of bullet points including exactly what the reported problem is, what lines it affects if known and who exactly to call with the reported problem.
People being too busy or too lazy is simply not a problem. You have a simple procedure that people cannot object to and if people don't follow it, they are sacked or prosecuted. Too many excuses, too much finger pointing and too much lack of responsibility are all the things that makes Britain an embarassing place to live and work. The few people who take charge like Alan Sugar, Richard Branson and others are famous just because they do things properly. In the UK it makes them look like saints.
'Food' for thought!
Has anyone else noticed how often the BBC News website adds quote marks on phrases that are statements of fact as if they are metaphors? A couple from today: Senior al-Qaeda leader 'killed'; 'Noise pollution' threatens fish; Whitehall pay 'discipline' urged
Personally, these seem like a poor overuse of something that is used to mark a metaphor or euphemism for something like "John Smith was found 'blotto'" perhaps because that was the word used by somebody in the story.
Anyway, stop 'over-using' the single 'quotation-mark' BBC!
Personally, these seem like a poor overuse of something that is used to mark a metaphor or euphemism for something like "John Smith was found 'blotto'" perhaps because that was the word used by somebody in the story.
Anyway, stop 'over-using' the single 'quotation-mark' BBC!
Friday 28 May 2010
The maglev - conventional rail debate
Have you noticed that as you grow older and wiser, you start to see problems in the logic of politicians and the media when they discuss important issues? Alan James of UK Ultraspeed is categoric that the German transrapid system will deliver advantages in virtually every area over conventional rail for high-speed lines yet for some reason, there are still people who are unconvinced. Of course, anyone can understand the risk of a wholesale change in something so large and important but I want to return to my initial point.
I have read various articles about why people legitimately think maglev is not to be preferred over conventional rail and here is where the problems are. Firstly, people compare the UK to Japan. In many ways we have similar issues, similar population densities and a love of trains except for one important detail: Japan has earthquakes and their maglev trains need a much greater distance between train and guideway in order to avoid serious damage in the event of an earthquake, generating strong magnetic fields over these great distances takes an enormous amount of power. Or the media compare the UK to China. Sure, China have an actual maglex system running every day and this is useful to prove it is technically workable but the Chinese system does not run into the centre of Shanghai (an irrelevance at best) and also the whole society in China is different, its economics are different, communism and state ownership dictate low costs to the public which makes it seem like a financial disaster. Again, ticket pricing could be calculated on running costs to recoup the outlay in, say, 10 years and this can be considered at the planning stage.
At the end of the day, I still cannot see any reasons, other than the practical concerns of building guideways or their aesthetics, to say that conventional rail is in anyway better. As I read before, it is like the Canal owners telling everyone that these new fangled trains would move so fast they would melt your eyeballs.
Technology has moved on, its a shame we can't.
I have read various articles about why people legitimately think maglev is not to be preferred over conventional rail and here is where the problems are. Firstly, people compare the UK to Japan. In many ways we have similar issues, similar population densities and a love of trains except for one important detail: Japan has earthquakes and their maglev trains need a much greater distance between train and guideway in order to avoid serious damage in the event of an earthquake, generating strong magnetic fields over these great distances takes an enormous amount of power. Or the media compare the UK to China. Sure, China have an actual maglex system running every day and this is useful to prove it is technically workable but the Chinese system does not run into the centre of Shanghai (an irrelevance at best) and also the whole society in China is different, its economics are different, communism and state ownership dictate low costs to the public which makes it seem like a financial disaster. Again, ticket pricing could be calculated on running costs to recoup the outlay in, say, 10 years and this can be considered at the planning stage.
At the end of the day, I still cannot see any reasons, other than the practical concerns of building guideways or their aesthetics, to say that conventional rail is in anyway better. As I read before, it is like the Canal owners telling everyone that these new fangled trains would move so fast they would melt your eyeballs.
Technology has moved on, its a shame we can't.
Victory in Christ
I know lots of people who are committed Christians but who seem to suffer in different ways in much the same way as someone who is not. This might include physical or emotional problems and for many, they just accept that this is the way it is for reasons that might be unknown or simply guessed. These problems then lead to guilt, fear, low self-esteem and more importantly a lack of ability to further the kingdom of God in whatever ministry you are gifted in.
I want to tell you however that this is not the way that God wants your life to be, He wants you to have victory against opposition, "it is for freedom that Christ has set you free" Gal 5.1
The next verse then tells us what we need to do, "do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery". What does Paul mean by a yoke of slavery? Well he is talking about religious slavery - wanting to improve yourself by good works - but I believe this is closely related to a Christians salvation from a sinful nature into a new kingdom where Jesus is in charge. The link is simple, when God is removed from the equation, you either have the state we are all born into (i.e. sin) or we have religiousness, a form of Godliness but denying its power (2 Tim 3:5). Either way, what the Bible teaches is that the life for a Christian takes 2 stages, as found in Romans 6: Death to the old life and a new life in Christ. These are talked about in terms of death and resurrection and are related also to baptism, the way in which we pass from justification (being forgiven) to salvation (living a new life). I think the church often teaches a single state conversion experience when it is very important that as well as accepting forgiveness - a free gift of God in Jesus - that we also are baptised into a new life.
OK, many people have been baptised but still suffer in themselves why is this? Well the salvation or new life talked about in Romans 6 leads to a state where we should no longer be slaves to sin (remember Gal 5) and to then count ourselves dead to sin (Rom 6:11) but alive to God. This sounds like an accusation but we need to have a more rounded or complete view about sin and its effects. No-one likes to be told they are sinful (even if its true!) or even that the sin they commit has a large effect on their life, especially if they have been prayed for etc but sin is not just personal, it is not always conscious and it doesn't always have immediate or complete affect. Our entire world is in a sinful state and this affects the physical world as well as our lives. We interact with people who are sinful, our close friends and family could be affecting us, things that have happened in the past, particularly things that might seem fairly mundane like rejection or unforgiveness, can also have an effect. The best way to see all of this is actually simple. Life comes from God, initially when we are created and daily as we exist. If we are separate from God, we are separated from that life, our own life given to us by God slowly degrades and we experience sin and death. Sadly, this is also true of the believer who either dabbles in sin, does not have past issues dealt with or more importantly for this article, who does not "count themselves dead to sin".
Jesus' death has been accomplished - it is fact. The victory over sin and death is accomplished - it is fact, this victory available to believers by repentence and baptism is a fact. We need to take hold of this and live it! It is not an accident that Romans 6 and Galatians 5 tell us to actively chose against the sinful nature, not just our actions but our thoughts or our orientation towards it. If we chose to believe God's truth instead of the devil'l lies, we actually have the power in Christ to throw off the oppression we face.
Suppose you suffer from headaches. You have had prayer and have decided there is nothing specifically wrong from your past experiences and that to all intents and purposes you should not have them. What do you do? You keep praying but when you get a headache, you allow yourself to feel guilty about your lifestyle (which you think might be causing your headaches), or insecure that you are not a good Christian or even bad that you are being spiritually attacked for no reason. This way of thinking then just makes things worse, the headaches come more frequently because you allow sinful thinking to dominate your mind (or rather thinking in a way that relates to the world and not God) and then you can't find a way out.
As a believer you have a very specific way out. When you start getting headaches, you take a break, you ask God to show you if there is a cause (e.g. maybe you're simply tired!) and if not, you claim the promises of God from the Bible and you do NOT allow yourself to feel oppressed or under attack. You trust God to teach you and keep you through it. You do not tell yourself that because you are not a good Christian, you have brought these attacks (for sure we reap what we sow and God might allow something to teach us but if He doesn't reveal his teaching then there is no teaching to be had). We claim victory, we align our thoughts with the victory of Jesus as described in the Bible and then we praise God that He is amazing!
I want to tell you however that this is not the way that God wants your life to be, He wants you to have victory against opposition, "it is for freedom that Christ has set you free" Gal 5.1
The next verse then tells us what we need to do, "do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery". What does Paul mean by a yoke of slavery? Well he is talking about religious slavery - wanting to improve yourself by good works - but I believe this is closely related to a Christians salvation from a sinful nature into a new kingdom where Jesus is in charge. The link is simple, when God is removed from the equation, you either have the state we are all born into (i.e. sin) or we have religiousness, a form of Godliness but denying its power (2 Tim 3:5). Either way, what the Bible teaches is that the life for a Christian takes 2 stages, as found in Romans 6: Death to the old life and a new life in Christ. These are talked about in terms of death and resurrection and are related also to baptism, the way in which we pass from justification (being forgiven) to salvation (living a new life). I think the church often teaches a single state conversion experience when it is very important that as well as accepting forgiveness - a free gift of God in Jesus - that we also are baptised into a new life.
OK, many people have been baptised but still suffer in themselves why is this? Well the salvation or new life talked about in Romans 6 leads to a state where we should no longer be slaves to sin (remember Gal 5) and to then count ourselves dead to sin (Rom 6:11) but alive to God. This sounds like an accusation but we need to have a more rounded or complete view about sin and its effects. No-one likes to be told they are sinful (even if its true!) or even that the sin they commit has a large effect on their life, especially if they have been prayed for etc but sin is not just personal, it is not always conscious and it doesn't always have immediate or complete affect. Our entire world is in a sinful state and this affects the physical world as well as our lives. We interact with people who are sinful, our close friends and family could be affecting us, things that have happened in the past, particularly things that might seem fairly mundane like rejection or unforgiveness, can also have an effect. The best way to see all of this is actually simple. Life comes from God, initially when we are created and daily as we exist. If we are separate from God, we are separated from that life, our own life given to us by God slowly degrades and we experience sin and death. Sadly, this is also true of the believer who either dabbles in sin, does not have past issues dealt with or more importantly for this article, who does not "count themselves dead to sin".
Jesus' death has been accomplished - it is fact. The victory over sin and death is accomplished - it is fact, this victory available to believers by repentence and baptism is a fact. We need to take hold of this and live it! It is not an accident that Romans 6 and Galatians 5 tell us to actively chose against the sinful nature, not just our actions but our thoughts or our orientation towards it. If we chose to believe God's truth instead of the devil'l lies, we actually have the power in Christ to throw off the oppression we face.
Suppose you suffer from headaches. You have had prayer and have decided there is nothing specifically wrong from your past experiences and that to all intents and purposes you should not have them. What do you do? You keep praying but when you get a headache, you allow yourself to feel guilty about your lifestyle (which you think might be causing your headaches), or insecure that you are not a good Christian or even bad that you are being spiritually attacked for no reason. This way of thinking then just makes things worse, the headaches come more frequently because you allow sinful thinking to dominate your mind (or rather thinking in a way that relates to the world and not God) and then you can't find a way out.
As a believer you have a very specific way out. When you start getting headaches, you take a break, you ask God to show you if there is a cause (e.g. maybe you're simply tired!) and if not, you claim the promises of God from the Bible and you do NOT allow yourself to feel oppressed or under attack. You trust God to teach you and keep you through it. You do not tell yourself that because you are not a good Christian, you have brought these attacks (for sure we reap what we sow and God might allow something to teach us but if He doesn't reveal his teaching then there is no teaching to be had). We claim victory, we align our thoughts with the victory of Jesus as described in the Bible and then we praise God that He is amazing!
Thursday 27 May 2010
500 kph high-speed trains
I have been following these guys for a while. They are called UK Ultraspeed and are a lobby group trying to convince the government that rather than spending vast amounts of money on conventional high speed rail which, because of their designs and limits, provide moderate benefits at best, for the same money you can install a very high speed system capable of running trains at 500 kph which is around 310mph.
Essentially we are talking about magnetically levitated trains running on specially built concrete guideways. They have superior acceleration, braking, quality of ride and safety compared to standard trains and of course extremely high top speed.
What I am particularly impressed by is that Ultraspeed are not simply pitching high-technology which is expensive but worth it, they are instead saying that not only are you getting better equipment for the same money but that there are major economic advantages to cities outside of London, something that sadly is not currently true. For instance, the standard high speed rail systems have separate east and west coast systems because of the pennine mountains, which cause either expensive tunnelling operations or would require gradients that are quite simply not possible on standard rails. If you want to travel from Manchester to Newcastle, you either have to get a slow train across to Leeds and then up to Newcastle or go up to Glasgow and back across Scotland. Any new lines are not going to be able to use the existing tunnels and will not spend the 100s of millions to bore new ones. Ultraspeed on the other hand can support steep gradients because of the magnetic drive system so that a new line could indeed cross the Pennines without tunnels. Imagine Liverpool to Manchester in 20 minutes, Manchester to Newcastle in 30 minutes and Newcastle to Glasgow via Edinbugh in 40 minutes. Imagine what that would do to encourage investment in these areas with a massive workforce and little employment.
The only objections can be that the guideways are elevated and not attractive. The system requires less land to be bought, has been tried and tested elsewhere, requires less trains, less staff, less control equipment and ties the country together in a single high-speed line for the SAME money as other proposals. The idea that standard systems can re-use existing rails is a red herring. There is simply not the capacity for any additional trains to use most parts of the current system and the delays and problems you encounter are frequently due to level crossings, freight trains and local trains, things that do not exist on the transrapid system. There really is no reason to go backwards with conventional rail any more.
Essentially we are talking about magnetically levitated trains running on specially built concrete guideways. They have superior acceleration, braking, quality of ride and safety compared to standard trains and of course extremely high top speed.
What I am particularly impressed by is that Ultraspeed are not simply pitching high-technology which is expensive but worth it, they are instead saying that not only are you getting better equipment for the same money but that there are major economic advantages to cities outside of London, something that sadly is not currently true. For instance, the standard high speed rail systems have separate east and west coast systems because of the pennine mountains, which cause either expensive tunnelling operations or would require gradients that are quite simply not possible on standard rails. If you want to travel from Manchester to Newcastle, you either have to get a slow train across to Leeds and then up to Newcastle or go up to Glasgow and back across Scotland. Any new lines are not going to be able to use the existing tunnels and will not spend the 100s of millions to bore new ones. Ultraspeed on the other hand can support steep gradients because of the magnetic drive system so that a new line could indeed cross the Pennines without tunnels. Imagine Liverpool to Manchester in 20 minutes, Manchester to Newcastle in 30 minutes and Newcastle to Glasgow via Edinbugh in 40 minutes. Imagine what that would do to encourage investment in these areas with a massive workforce and little employment.
The only objections can be that the guideways are elevated and not attractive. The system requires less land to be bought, has been tried and tested elsewhere, requires less trains, less staff, less control equipment and ties the country together in a single high-speed line for the SAME money as other proposals. The idea that standard systems can re-use existing rails is a red herring. There is simply not the capacity for any additional trains to use most parts of the current system and the delays and problems you encounter are frequently due to level crossings, freight trains and local trains, things that do not exist on the transrapid system. There really is no reason to go backwards with conventional rail any more.
Monday 17 May 2010
Budget Deficits and the unfairness of government
I was reading a Peter Oborne column about the challenge that the new government faced. Well a challenge would be walking up Kilmanjiro while this is more like the north face of the Eiger in pyjamas.
He said that the current amount that was being overspent was equivalent to around £500 million per DAY. Yes, every day, we are spending around £500M more than we get into government coffers. This equates to around £600B per year and how does anyone reduce that? Well the government have already announced £6B worth of savings but incredibly, despite this being a huge amount, it doesn't sound much compared to £600B but presumably some of that must be projected and could be removed on paper before any money is spent but still.
That makes me then realise how unfair government is. A government can basically run up a massive bill by spending too much, grabbing all the "look at us supporting the NHS/education" headlines and then leave the next government to have to clear up all the mess. The amount we spend on interest every year could replace the whole rail network practically! They then suffer the childishly ignorant headlines of some of the media such as the Daily Mirror whose headline was basically, "vote for the Tories and they will cut all the important spending" as if that decision was taken for no other reason than presumably to give money to rich people! Probably my biggest regret of the recent election was that many people in the country still either believed the half-truths of the Mirror or simply decided that it is only worth voting for people who will give you the benefits you want regardless of the knock-on effect.
Whether you like the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition or not, at least they understand that we need to reduce wasteful government spending that ballooned under Labour and encourage businesses so that they can employ all these people who bemoan the lack of jobs. They have an impossible task and possibly will need to raise income tax but then alas, after 5 years, no doubt everyone will accuse them or incompetence and Labour will be handed another clean set of finances to go and spend again grabbing all the headlines.
What can be done? No idea but I would like some regulations that can legally prevent government from borrowing when the economy is strong and from creative accounting that would be illegal in the real world. hmm
He said that the current amount that was being overspent was equivalent to around £500 million per DAY. Yes, every day, we are spending around £500M more than we get into government coffers. This equates to around £600B per year and how does anyone reduce that? Well the government have already announced £6B worth of savings but incredibly, despite this being a huge amount, it doesn't sound much compared to £600B but presumably some of that must be projected and could be removed on paper before any money is spent but still.
That makes me then realise how unfair government is. A government can basically run up a massive bill by spending too much, grabbing all the "look at us supporting the NHS/education" headlines and then leave the next government to have to clear up all the mess. The amount we spend on interest every year could replace the whole rail network practically! They then suffer the childishly ignorant headlines of some of the media such as the Daily Mirror whose headline was basically, "vote for the Tories and they will cut all the important spending" as if that decision was taken for no other reason than presumably to give money to rich people! Probably my biggest regret of the recent election was that many people in the country still either believed the half-truths of the Mirror or simply decided that it is only worth voting for people who will give you the benefits you want regardless of the knock-on effect.
Whether you like the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition or not, at least they understand that we need to reduce wasteful government spending that ballooned under Labour and encourage businesses so that they can employ all these people who bemoan the lack of jobs. They have an impossible task and possibly will need to raise income tax but then alas, after 5 years, no doubt everyone will accuse them or incompetence and Labour will be handed another clean set of finances to go and spend again grabbing all the headlines.
What can be done? No idea but I would like some regulations that can legally prevent government from borrowing when the economy is strong and from creative accounting that would be illegal in the real world. hmm
Wednesday 31 March 2010
The idiots are at it again - Data Loss
Here we go again, someone at Barnet Council decided to store unencrypted data about school children on CDs and USB sticks which were then stolen in a burglary and are out at large. Just another example of the incompetence that exists at every level in our public services related to the protection of data.
Firstly, the council say that the person in question has been suspended but why aren't they jailed? Why do we still not take data protection seriously. More importantly, the council says they have now blocked external drives to prevent this - why wasn't this already the case? Why, when there could be a simple 2-sided document on data protection sent to all public services in the country, was this a reactionary measure rather than a proactive one? Why do companies still assume that people can be trusted to do do something properly? People are not perfect, they do not always understand what they are doing, they sometimes act maliciously or to make their life easier so quite simply you must prevent people as far as possible being able to circumvent protection tools.
Interestingly, the data in its normal form was encrypted so the council presumably partly understood what they were doing but didn't go far enough.
"An independent review is underway". What's the point? We have enough of these already, let me give you some free very obvious advice and pass this onto the IT Services division of the Cabinet Office:
"Put together a small team of experts in IT security and decide what all public services must adhere to in terms of data security. Imagine all scenarios, lay them out, send the document to all public departments and make them follow it at pain of prosecution" Why is that so hard?
Firstly, the council say that the person in question has been suspended but why aren't they jailed? Why do we still not take data protection seriously. More importantly, the council says they have now blocked external drives to prevent this - why wasn't this already the case? Why, when there could be a simple 2-sided document on data protection sent to all public services in the country, was this a reactionary measure rather than a proactive one? Why do companies still assume that people can be trusted to do do something properly? People are not perfect, they do not always understand what they are doing, they sometimes act maliciously or to make their life easier so quite simply you must prevent people as far as possible being able to circumvent protection tools.
Interestingly, the data in its normal form was encrypted so the council presumably partly understood what they were doing but didn't go far enough.
"An independent review is underway". What's the point? We have enough of these already, let me give you some free very obvious advice and pass this onto the IT Services division of the Cabinet Office:
"Put together a small team of experts in IT security and decide what all public services must adhere to in terms of data security. Imagine all scenarios, lay them out, send the document to all public departments and make them follow it at pain of prosecution" Why is that so hard?
Monday 22 March 2010
Friday 19 March 2010
Amazing animation
I love music and I love animation, it still seems amazing to me (like videos used to before everyone got the kit to do it). Here is a youtube vid of a classic:
The beloved profile picture
I am finally getting to grips with something called "multi-media". I have for many moons been writing text with little design concern and wondered about doing something a little crazy so I added a profile picture. The thing is, I don't have many photos of myself since I mostly take them of other things so this is about 4 or 5 years old but I haven't changed (since I was 5) so should be fine. I might attempt a YouTube video next - yeah baby!
Thursday 18 March 2010
Another example of government and knee-jerk
This story in the news relates the fact that Facebook and MySpace do not have a "panic button" which users can use to get to the National Online anti-Paedophile Agency and more worryingly that they are being summoned to the Home Secretary to explain why. A recent murder of a girl who met someone online has been used as the cause-celebre of this 'requirement' but AGAIN this stupid government does not understand that creating more red-tape/rules/requirements etc does not usually produce any measurable increase in protection - it just makes them look inept.
For example, the girl in question not only talked to the attacker on MSN which DOES already have the button, but the button, of course, is only useful if the person is suspicious of the attacker's activity. Presumably if she was, she wouldn't have met with the guy in the first-place so the button has almost zero value to achieve what they want to achieve. As with other attempts at protecting young people, the important thing here is education, parents talking to their children and monitoring internet usage such as having a PC in the living room rather than a bedroom. Sadly none of these will stop attacks, which if not online would be at a park or in a dark street at night etc but at least these have a genuine benefit.
As for CEOP CEO Jim Gamble saying that Facebook's policy was, "beyond logic", he needs to learn what logic means before he makes himself look like another headline grabbing but somewhat ignorant Suit.
Although Facebook and MySpace presumably could add the button, I support their objection on the grounds that it is a free country and it is a pointless exercise.
For example, the girl in question not only talked to the attacker on MSN which DOES already have the button, but the button, of course, is only useful if the person is suspicious of the attacker's activity. Presumably if she was, she wouldn't have met with the guy in the first-place so the button has almost zero value to achieve what they want to achieve. As with other attempts at protecting young people, the important thing here is education, parents talking to their children and monitoring internet usage such as having a PC in the living room rather than a bedroom. Sadly none of these will stop attacks, which if not online would be at a park or in a dark street at night etc but at least these have a genuine benefit.
As for CEOP CEO Jim Gamble saying that Facebook's policy was, "beyond logic", he needs to learn what logic means before he makes himself look like another headline grabbing but somewhat ignorant Suit.
Although Facebook and MySpace presumably could add the button, I support their objection on the grounds that it is a free country and it is a pointless exercise.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
Self-service tills at Tesco
I had a go on these this morning, not for the first time, to buy a couple of boxes of Coke on my way to work.
"Scan to start"
OK, scanned the two boxes and pressed "Finish and Pay"
Then pressed Add Coupon and get a lovely loud message in the quiet morning supermarket, "You cannot add a coupon until you have scanned your clubcard". Nice, feel a little embarassed as all the people round me obviously think I'm a Cretan since I didn't know this. The menus are still a little all over the place because I think I had to exit, scan the card, click finish again and then add the coupon, then I have to pay again, select debit card etc. All-in-all a little too slow for my liking. Why not be able to scan whatever I want, whenever I want and then when I want to pay it can say, "please scan your clubcard" if I need to. This way it is all nice and simple and quick.
Think I will stick with the normal tills.
"Scan to start"
OK, scanned the two boxes and pressed "Finish and Pay"
Then pressed Add Coupon and get a lovely loud message in the quiet morning supermarket, "You cannot add a coupon until you have scanned your clubcard". Nice, feel a little embarassed as all the people round me obviously think I'm a Cretan since I didn't know this. The menus are still a little all over the place because I think I had to exit, scan the card, click finish again and then add the coupon, then I have to pay again, select debit card etc. All-in-all a little too slow for my liking. Why not be able to scan whatever I want, whenever I want and then when I want to pay it can say, "please scan your clubcard" if I need to. This way it is all nice and simple and quick.
Think I will stick with the normal tills.
Tuesday 2 March 2010
Well is it law or not?
I was trying to find out a few things today. 1) Whether I am allowed to do gas work in my own house and 2) Whether electrical bonds were necessary across boilers.
Simple questions you would agree but the answers are not simple. The reason I wondered about 1 was that previously I had seen a legal statement saying, "If you carry out gas work for gain.." which implies (quite rightly) that someone doing it as a job must be registered, however, a friend of mine, a gas fitter/plumber, said that now you have to be provably competent to do the work anywhere at any time. A simple search of Google and I found my answers to question 1) Definitely, maybe, sometimes and never and 2) Definitely, sometimes, never. In other words nobody really knows.
Why is this a problem? Well two reasons for me. The first is that depending on the answers, particularly to the first, I might have to shell out £300 for a tradesman which I don't have and secondly it shows the complete irony that in the information age, we lack the ability to distill what is truth from what is opinion. Maybe the truth is not obvious, maybe a document is down to interpretation but what can you do if the people who need to know (like council/gas inspectors/electrical inspectors) don't actually know themselves? How can someone tell me that I must bond a boiler when they don't know the reason just because they have a badge and that's what they've always done. I realised that the problem with sites like Gas Safe which run the gas scheme use words like "Should". You do not use the word "Should" for legal requirements, you use the word "Must". Read the Highway Code (not a bad doc as it happens) and you will see a distinction between you "must obey a police officer's directions" because it is law and "you should use dipped headlights when it is raining" which is not in itself a legal requirement.
If only it was as simple as applying extra weight to the opinions of trained or qualified personnel, however as was clear from my questions, this didn't add much to the quality of the answers. A plumber might have been trained to do something without knowing why so to them, "you must" whereas a pragmatist might completely ignore the law and say, "do it yourself".
At the end of the day, you can try to a certain point to follow the law but if that law is obscured (sometimes deliberately by tradesmen!) I think that is a reasonable defence should legal action be taken against you. As long as you do it all properly of course!
Simple questions you would agree but the answers are not simple. The reason I wondered about 1 was that previously I had seen a legal statement saying, "If you carry out gas work for gain.." which implies (quite rightly) that someone doing it as a job must be registered, however, a friend of mine, a gas fitter/plumber, said that now you have to be provably competent to do the work anywhere at any time. A simple search of Google and I found my answers to question 1) Definitely, maybe, sometimes and never and 2) Definitely, sometimes, never. In other words nobody really knows.
Why is this a problem? Well two reasons for me. The first is that depending on the answers, particularly to the first, I might have to shell out £300 for a tradesman which I don't have and secondly it shows the complete irony that in the information age, we lack the ability to distill what is truth from what is opinion. Maybe the truth is not obvious, maybe a document is down to interpretation but what can you do if the people who need to know (like council/gas inspectors/electrical inspectors) don't actually know themselves? How can someone tell me that I must bond a boiler when they don't know the reason just because they have a badge and that's what they've always done. I realised that the problem with sites like Gas Safe which run the gas scheme use words like "Should". You do not use the word "Should" for legal requirements, you use the word "Must". Read the Highway Code (not a bad doc as it happens) and you will see a distinction between you "must obey a police officer's directions" because it is law and "you should use dipped headlights when it is raining" which is not in itself a legal requirement.
If only it was as simple as applying extra weight to the opinions of trained or qualified personnel, however as was clear from my questions, this didn't add much to the quality of the answers. A plumber might have been trained to do something without knowing why so to them, "you must" whereas a pragmatist might completely ignore the law and say, "do it yourself".
At the end of the day, you can try to a certain point to follow the law but if that law is obscured (sometimes deliberately by tradesmen!) I think that is a reasonable defence should legal action be taken against you. As long as you do it all properly of course!
Thursday 18 February 2010
Government's Challenge or Government's Making?
I read the following on the BBC News today: "He added that the deterioration emphasised the scale of the fiscal challenge still facing the government, with Chancellor Alistair Darling facing growing calls to act more quickly to tackle the deficit."
Interesting how people can put a spin on things. When you read this, you think that somehow a financial problem jumped onto the government without warning and they face a challenge to deal with it. However, most people know that the government have been spending more than they have for years and years and the so-called 'challenge' is simply the rod that the government made for its own back. I never really understand how this is allowed to continue and then left for the next government to deal with. Isn't there a point at which someone has the power to order the government to cut spending?
It all seems unfair, any new government will have to cut spending massively to keep things afloat and they will of course be accused of being a government that doesn't care about things like the welfare system, education and the NHS (the big money 3). So Labour gets all the "we spent loads on important systems" headlines and the next government inherits austerity.
Typical isn't it!
Interesting how people can put a spin on things. When you read this, you think that somehow a financial problem jumped onto the government without warning and they face a challenge to deal with it. However, most people know that the government have been spending more than they have for years and years and the so-called 'challenge' is simply the rod that the government made for its own back. I never really understand how this is allowed to continue and then left for the next government to deal with. Isn't there a point at which someone has the power to order the government to cut spending?
It all seems unfair, any new government will have to cut spending massively to keep things afloat and they will of course be accused of being a government that doesn't care about things like the welfare system, education and the NHS (the big money 3). So Labour gets all the "we spent loads on important systems" headlines and the next government inherits austerity.
Typical isn't it!
Monday 15 February 2010
24 Season 8? I can't watch it any more
You know those annoying things in TV programmes that you think would never happen in real life like woman investigating strange noises in the basement or cops who can't seem to make the obvious choice and shoot the guy before he presses the button? Well I was watching episode 3 of 24 season 8, something I have always really enjoyed and more or less been hooked on from episode to the next. WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS?
Ok, here's a woman, she works for a sensitive government counter-terrorism unit, one mistake here or there and something big will go wrong. She has some secret from her past and some ex-boyfriend turns up and threatens to do something bad. What should she do? Confess to the boss? Send someone else out to meet him and pretend he got the wrong person? Get a friend to investigate? Get security to chuck him in prison? Pay some rough-neck to send him packing? or none of the above.
You guessed it, she meets up with him proving that she is the person he has been looking for, talks with him, offers him money to go away which of course proves that she will do anything and then Lord forbid gives him the keys to her flat and tells him he can stay night and needs to go tomorrow. I mean honestly.
I know these things are dramatized for TV but that was so unbelievably stupid and contrived that I got angry and had to switch it off and delete the rest of the episodes. This will now be the end of my 24 watching - it has hit a new pathetic low.
Sorry guys!
Ok, here's a woman, she works for a sensitive government counter-terrorism unit, one mistake here or there and something big will go wrong. She has some secret from her past and some ex-boyfriend turns up and threatens to do something bad. What should she do? Confess to the boss? Send someone else out to meet him and pretend he got the wrong person? Get a friend to investigate? Get security to chuck him in prison? Pay some rough-neck to send him packing? or none of the above.
You guessed it, she meets up with him proving that she is the person he has been looking for, talks with him, offers him money to go away which of course proves that she will do anything and then Lord forbid gives him the keys to her flat and tells him he can stay night and needs to go tomorrow. I mean honestly.
I know these things are dramatized for TV but that was so unbelievably stupid and contrived that I got angry and had to switch it off and delete the rest of the episodes. This will now be the end of my 24 watching - it has hit a new pathetic low.
Sorry guys!
Tuesday 2 February 2010
Why is Customer Service so Terrible?
My experience and it seems that of many of my friends is that most Customer Services is rubbish. There are two things that are troubling. 1) You shouldn't need that much Customer Service if your organisation was running properly and 2) If you do have Customer Service, why is it not the basic remit of the rep to own and resolve the problem?
To be fair, some organisations are not bad. I have had no problems with Supermarkets but then I suppose most of that is handled in-store (never used their other services so don't know) but the worst by far are 1) Utility companies yes British Gas and BT are probably by far the worst 2) Mobile operators and 3) Some government departments.
Let us look at some figures that should make us shiver:
The Inland Revenue were slated for not answering more than 50% of the calls to their Customer Services line which might sound poor until you realise that we are talking about 40 million calls and 100 million letters per year! Definately a number 1) issue. Tax apparently does have to be taxing which is why everyone has to call. I used the line because of problems with the web site. When you are talking about millions of people, these things need to be 100% spot-on. There's no room for crytographic logging in screens and sloppy messy site layout.
Another one is a friend who has tried to sort out a basic cock-up by BT with 13 phone calls! Now let us consider the reality here, you are a call-centre operative and someone calls and says, "You have cut off my phone line, I have not received a bill, it needs to be re-connected". What would you think? I would think, "oh, that is so embarassing, we've obviously really mucked up. Give me your details and I will make sure you are not inconvenienced any further or I will call you back if I have questions". What actually happens? another 12 calls and NOTHING. Shame on you, you arrogant, imbecilic organisation. It is clear that you are not fit for purpose unless you are taking people's money. One of these would be embarassing but quite obviously it happens every single day, all the time. If you have a quality manager, they need to be empowered or publically hanged!
Carphone Warehouse, yes, you're next. 4 phone-calls about a non-received cheque and apparently despite the shamefulness of the incompetence, just more excuses and for some reason the inability to use first-class post or a BACs/DD transfer to give me the money. They are still harassing me for an unpaid contract and the next letter they get from me will be cease and desist followed by a County Court summons.
Britain used to be great but mostly I find it embarassing. Why is it like this? Don't know, maybe we have chased cheapness so much in our quest for money that people cannot invest in quality anymore. Maybe there are too many service organisations and not enough competent people to run them. My view? Vote with your feet, stick two fingers up at them, embarass them in public and maybe someone will work out how to provide a good service.
Virgin Media on the other hand - wonderful, efficient, friendly and generous. It is possible people so sort it out.
To be fair, some organisations are not bad. I have had no problems with Supermarkets but then I suppose most of that is handled in-store (never used their other services so don't know) but the worst by far are 1) Utility companies yes British Gas and BT are probably by far the worst 2) Mobile operators and 3) Some government departments.
Let us look at some figures that should make us shiver:
The Inland Revenue were slated for not answering more than 50% of the calls to their Customer Services line which might sound poor until you realise that we are talking about 40 million calls and 100 million letters per year! Definately a number 1) issue. Tax apparently does have to be taxing which is why everyone has to call. I used the line because of problems with the web site. When you are talking about millions of people, these things need to be 100% spot-on. There's no room for crytographic logging in screens and sloppy messy site layout.
Another one is a friend who has tried to sort out a basic cock-up by BT with 13 phone calls! Now let us consider the reality here, you are a call-centre operative and someone calls and says, "You have cut off my phone line, I have not received a bill, it needs to be re-connected". What would you think? I would think, "oh, that is so embarassing, we've obviously really mucked up. Give me your details and I will make sure you are not inconvenienced any further or I will call you back if I have questions". What actually happens? another 12 calls and NOTHING. Shame on you, you arrogant, imbecilic organisation. It is clear that you are not fit for purpose unless you are taking people's money. One of these would be embarassing but quite obviously it happens every single day, all the time. If you have a quality manager, they need to be empowered or publically hanged!
Carphone Warehouse, yes, you're next. 4 phone-calls about a non-received cheque and apparently despite the shamefulness of the incompetence, just more excuses and for some reason the inability to use first-class post or a BACs/DD transfer to give me the money. They are still harassing me for an unpaid contract and the next letter they get from me will be cease and desist followed by a County Court summons.
Britain used to be great but mostly I find it embarassing. Why is it like this? Don't know, maybe we have chased cheapness so much in our quest for money that people cannot invest in quality anymore. Maybe there are too many service organisations and not enough competent people to run them. My view? Vote with your feet, stick two fingers up at them, embarass them in public and maybe someone will work out how to provide a good service.
Virgin Media on the other hand - wonderful, efficient, friendly and generous. It is possible people so sort it out.
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Why does God allow suffering
I read an article on the BBC web site about suffering, a topic that is at the fore after Haiti and the thousands who have died. I read the comments after the article and although the 6 different comments don't necessarily reflect 1/6 of the population each, it is worrying and sad when you read what people think about it. Sad that some people think God doesn't care, sad that people duck the issue and can only say things like, "we can only pray", "there are no answers" and worrying that even people who seem to be Christians who really don't understand the relationship between sin and suffering.
Sure, our sins can cause direct effects. We all know if we drink and drive then we might cause harm to somebody, if we don't govern our countries or share our wealth then some people are much more prone to suffer the effects of 'natural' disasters but I believe it goes deeper than that.
God loves us, the Bible is about as blunt about this fact as it could be. If God didn't care, we wouldn't even be here, He wouldn't need to tolerate our ignorance and misbehaviour. I think therefore to tally suffering with a loving God, we need look no further than Genesis 3 where God says to Adam, "because you sinned, cursed is the ground because of you". I like the NIV version because it is clear that God didn't curse the ground as a punishment as it appears in some versions but actually the effect of our corporate sin is that the very physical world we live in suffers as a result of our sin. This is not un-theological, you must remember that although God is the Landlord, He gave us the tenancy of the world. If we decide that we do not need God either individually or corporately then His sustaining power, His life is removed from the areas we have authority over (people and physical things) and the result is that we die and it dies.
I think it is imperative that Christians understand this link. How can we say we believe in a loving God but not understand or explain why people suffer? We need to see that death is not a punishment from a malevolant God but a result of our choice to remove Him from our life.
I have seen examples of people who give their lives to God and they are blessed in different ways, other people or countries that are Godless suffer. It is not always black and white because our lives overlap and the effects of our sins can be felt in many different ways but the gospel is that God wants to restore His life to us and He has done this through His son Jesus that when we truly see our current standing, we will choose to accept God and He can then restore us once again and also forgive us our 'trespasses' that we spend so much of our life doing!
Sure, our sins can cause direct effects. We all know if we drink and drive then we might cause harm to somebody, if we don't govern our countries or share our wealth then some people are much more prone to suffer the effects of 'natural' disasters but I believe it goes deeper than that.
God loves us, the Bible is about as blunt about this fact as it could be. If God didn't care, we wouldn't even be here, He wouldn't need to tolerate our ignorance and misbehaviour. I think therefore to tally suffering with a loving God, we need look no further than Genesis 3 where God says to Adam, "because you sinned, cursed is the ground because of you". I like the NIV version because it is clear that God didn't curse the ground as a punishment as it appears in some versions but actually the effect of our corporate sin is that the very physical world we live in suffers as a result of our sin. This is not un-theological, you must remember that although God is the Landlord, He gave us the tenancy of the world. If we decide that we do not need God either individually or corporately then His sustaining power, His life is removed from the areas we have authority over (people and physical things) and the result is that we die and it dies.
I think it is imperative that Christians understand this link. How can we say we believe in a loving God but not understand or explain why people suffer? We need to see that death is not a punishment from a malevolant God but a result of our choice to remove Him from our life.
I have seen examples of people who give their lives to God and they are blessed in different ways, other people or countries that are Godless suffer. It is not always black and white because our lives overlap and the effects of our sins can be felt in many different ways but the gospel is that God wants to restore His life to us and He has done this through His son Jesus that when we truly see our current standing, we will choose to accept God and He can then restore us once again and also forgive us our 'trespasses' that we spend so much of our life doing!
Tuesday 12 January 2010
My Tax Return (Again)
I had to ring the helpdesk today to get some help. I asked what my unique tax reference was and she couldn't tell me (not sure whether she couldn't or wasn't allowed to) which was not helpful. She said that the unique tax reference was a UTR number (so she was saying that the UTR number was a UTR number) which of course was no help at all.
She then said that the problem was my userid, not the password so I could "recover the user id". Great, went back to the site and clicked the link and guess what? I need my unique tax reference number. I was fairly sure what it was anyway and I tried that and that appeared to work. It turns out the number I had written on last years piece of paper was the user id even though I had a card with an alpha-numeric user id on it, the proper one was just numbers.
High security or just a pain?
At least I can find out how many pence I owe HMRC. great.
She then said that the problem was my userid, not the password so I could "recover the user id". Great, went back to the site and clicked the link and guess what? I need my unique tax reference number. I was fairly sure what it was anyway and I tried that and that appeared to work. It turns out the number I had written on last years piece of paper was the user id even though I had a card with an alpha-numeric user id on it, the proper one was just numbers.
High security or just a pain?
At least I can find out how many pence I owe HMRC. great.
Monday 11 January 2010
Tax Return - My Head Hurts
I have to fill in a tax return. No big deal, I'm comfortable with taxes/income/expenses etc and the online system seems to ask most of the right questions. The pain for me is that I can't log in to the stupid thing. I eventually found the government gateway card which of course I haven't seen since last year. For all the fervour, the government gateway have decided that we need to have automatically generated alpha-numeric user ids of 12 characters. Great! Not remembering that then! I can remember my NI number, bank account numbers and even my online bank user id but not this one. So anyway, I go to login - what was the password? Oh that's OK, I found my last year piece of paper which I have written my password down on so now we have zero security if anyone rifles through my desk - they will find user id and password. I tried to login and it failed. I tried all the normal passwords I use and none of them work so I have to use the trusty old "forgot password" link. Now every other site in the world will simply ask you to fill in your registered email address and they'll send you a link. Perhaps a security question just in case and you're away but not HMRC.gov.uk. You need to type in your userid (got than on a card) the email address you registered with - funnily enough forgot that too so tried a few. Then you have to fill in your national insurance number (i know that off by heart) and the dreaded Unique Taxpayers Reference (as if they haven't already asked for everything). NOT ONE piece of paper from HMRC contains a line saying anything like UTR. I have about 10 different tax references and one number appears a few times that certainly looks like it might be a unique tax reference but after all that NO DICE.
I have to call them up. No doubt they have to employ 10000 helpdesk staff because they system is so typically over the top stupid crap that probably 50% of people have to call it every year. No doubt they will ask me security questions, probably which I've forgotten and then they'll have to send me a new password in the post or some other very insecure system.
The worst thing is, apart from my PAYE, I've only earned about £75 for the year and paid tax on most of it already and people wonder why most folk can't be arsed to fill in their tax return honestly.
"Tax doesn't have to be taxing" maybe not but unfortunately the HMRC website does have to be taxing.
I have to call them up. No doubt they have to employ 10000 helpdesk staff because they system is so typically over the top stupid crap that probably 50% of people have to call it every year. No doubt they will ask me security questions, probably which I've forgotten and then they'll have to send me a new password in the post or some other very insecure system.
The worst thing is, apart from my PAYE, I've only earned about £75 for the year and paid tax on most of it already and people wonder why most folk can't be arsed to fill in their tax return honestly.
"Tax doesn't have to be taxing" maybe not but unfortunately the HMRC website does have to be taxing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)