Friday, May 11, 2012

A Calculated Farce


The New York Times
Airplane Security Debated Anew After Latest Bombing Plot
Published: May 10, 2012
WASHINGTON — The latest attempt by Al Qaeda to make an underwear bomb designed to be detonated on a plane headed to the United States has set off a fierce debate among security officials in Washington and their critics in Congress about whether the current measures to protect airliners would have detected the bomb . . .

Peter’s Comment
Whether or not current security measures would have detected the bomb is a mere sideshow to a much wider issue.
Washington, as the self-appointed World policeman, seems unable to understand that no amount of security can buy safety while they meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations and impose their will on the World as though they have a God-given right.
And why the emphasis on airline travel? Air travel has long been the safest form of transportation ever devised and for each airliner destroyed by terrorists in a given period there will thousands killed by car, bus or truck bombs. Does that fact leave a clue? Would it be feasible to have airline type security measures in place at every bus and truck depot, at every bus stop and truck stop, every shop, office and factory?
The answer to that must be very obvious. There is no limit to the opportunities for determined terrorists. But at least with the current policy it looks as though Washington is trying to do something about the problem, short of bankrupting the country. To a large part of the World, America’s solution is a calculated farce.
It will take generations to repair the damage to America’s reputation but a start must be made now. Bring the military home as fast as is decently possible and keep them home unless and only when requested by the United Nations.

                                 At the controls of a Boeing 737 flight simulator


Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Speed Limits


10:34 AM Tuesday May 8, 2012  NZ Herald
Peter Gill: Campaigning for 110km/h
139
When you consider suggesting that certain sections of recently built motorways could sustain a 110 km/h speed limit, you know you're going to garner howls of protest from certain corners of society and bureaucracy.
It wouldn't be New Zealand, would it, if suggesting something slightly progressive were not greeted by some doomsayer claiming that it will all lead to hell and damnation?
As a psychologist who has spent more years in journalism and in motoring writing than I care to remember, I was prepared for flak when I decided to speak out in this morning's New Zealand Herald.
It is my contention that there are now sections of newly built motorway that could easily sustain the extra 10km/h. They have very few on and off ramps, and excellent shoulders for vehicles to pull clear of traffic should a driver have a problem.
Many of us who use these stretches find ourselves unwittingly going at 110 anyway, because these pieces of roadway are so conducive to a little extra speed.
It is my opinion that where a roadway invites safe driving at 110, then 110 should be the speed limit. This would considerably ease driver frustration, which is just as big an accident promoter as any other factor.
What's more, in a million kilometers of testing cars for newspaper and magazine columns, I have found that the "sweet spot" for many cars is 110. By that, I mean that the gear and differential ratios are such that they are set for the car to be at its most contented at 110. In many parts of Australia 110 is allowed on designated stretches. The authorities here seem keen to follow Australia on much of its traffic policy, so why not this one?
There are those that will say that due to a generally mountainous topography, New Zealand has a "third world roading system", meaning narrow and twisting roads. That's true, but it's not those roads I am talking about.
Aucklanders will know of the long, smooth descent from Silverdale to Albany on a beautiful piece of road with hardly an on ramp or off ramp to disrupt the flow. The newly opened stretches of motorway around Hobsonville, and Kumeu are the same. There will be other stretches like them around New Zealand.
Continued below . . . 

Highway America

The first lot to climb into me today has been a road safety outfit called "Brake." I suggest that whoever, they are, they are aptly named. They will be wearing cardies under their hi viz vests and will have reported at least one driver today on cellphone number 555.
Fact is, that I know I am right. And if 110 is allowed, but it's foggy tomorrow morning, then we are smart enough to know that maybe driving at 110 is not a good idea in fog. Give the average Kiwi credit for having common sense.
I once got up to 255 km/h on a German autobahn in a 12 cylinder BMW 850, just because I wanted to celebrate the way the German police completely ignore you if the weather is clear, you're in a capable car, and you don't drive as if you've been "on the toot."
I've been a volunteer firefighter and have been to many road accidents. Nothing of what I have seen deters me from continuing with my suggestion of 110 for selected stretches. I am heartened that the AA tentatively agrees. That's good, because they represent a million people. I represent my experienced self.

Peter’s Comment

Peter Gill has been road testing for a long time. He tested New Zealand’s first taxi-van with me in 1982. However, I have to disagree with his plea for a 110kph speed limit, even though I agree with many of the points that he makes.

While speed alone may not be the single greatest killer it certainly claims many, often in single vehicle accidents. A greater menace is the driver who fails to go with the flow, whether the flow is above or below the speed limit.

Not all vehicles are capable of travelling at 110kph and many (all trucks, buses and vehicles with trailers) have a legal limit of only 90kph. These vehicles are therefore unable to go with the flow and are constantly exposed to the dangers of split speed limits (someone should tell OSH about this) or rather the disregard of many car drivers for the dangers of speeding near slower vehicles.

I understand that Peter Gill and many other car enthusiasts would love to be able to boot it without having to worry about being fined. But surely the priority for Government should be in first establishing a uniform speed limit for all vehicles.
Connect with Peter on Facebook or Twitter

Research here and elsewhere has shown that split speed limits not only don’t make roads safer but they actually increase accident rates by the traffic conflict that they cause. Research also shows that because most drivers typically travel at a little over the limit, most traffic related accidents occur at speeds at, or slightly below, the limit rather than slightly above. There is a good case for raising the limit for heavy vehicles while holding down the limit for the fastest drivers to a level that corresponds with the capability of slower vehicles.

In the USA, where I drove trucks in forty states (that's my truck above), each state sets its own speed limits. Some states opt for a uniform limit while other have split speed limits and guess what? The states with split limits generally have the best roads and the worst accident rates. Split speed limits cause traffic conflict and downright danger.

If Peter Gill accepts this proposition, will he also accept that trucks and buses should also be allowed to travel at 110kph or 120kph with the usual tolerance allowed by traffic patrols? I think not. I’ve had 50 years of professional driving and I believe the speed limit should stay at 100 kph and that should be the limit for all vehicles.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

COUNTRY MUSIC


Graeme McCardle to Sing at Ngatea


Long-time popular New Zealand country music singer, Graeme McCardle, will be the guest artist at the next Hauraki Country Music day in Ngatea on Saturday 19 May starting at 12.30 pm
Graeme, Helensville born and raised, has been a country music achiever since 1975 when he joined a local band. They were so busy that one year they only had four free weekends. He left the band to get some time to himself and his young family.
But later he started another band called Freightliner.
About that time he also founded the Helensville River Valley Country Music Club and has been either president or vice president ever since.
He has lost count of the number of regional awards that he has won and in his own words; “At times it was so many that it was almost embarrassing.”
In 1989 he was runner-up in the New Zealand Entertainer of the Year Awards.
Hear Graeme McCardle at the Memorial Hall, Ngatea, on Saturday 19 May. Rumour has it that there will also be a surprise event of some sort during the afternoon.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Doom and Gloom and Progress


Things to Fear in the Future

Below is yet another email of doom and gloom which I have reproduced unedited.
Nine Things That Will Disappear In Our Lifetimes


Whether these changes are good or bad depends in part on how we adapt to them. But, ready or not, here they come.

1. The Post Office
Get ready to imagine a world without the post office. They are so deeply in financial trouble that there is probably no way to sustain it the long term. Email, Fastway, Fed Ex, and UPS have just about wiped out the minimum revenue needed to keep the post office alive. Most of your mail every day is junk mail and bills.

2.
The Cheque
Britain is already laying the groundwork to do away with cheques by 2018. It costs the financial system billions of dollars a year to process cheques. Plastic cards and online transactions will lead to the eventual demise of the cheque. This plays right into the death of the post office. If you never paid your bills by mail and never received them by mail, the post office would absolutely go out of business.

3.
The Newspaper
The younger generation simply doesn't read the newspaper. They certainly don't subscribe to a daily delivered print edition. That may go the way of deliveries from the milkman, butcher, baker and fruit and veg man. As for reading the paper online, get ready to pay for it. The rise in mobile Internet devices and e-readers has caused all the newspaper and magazine publishers to form an alliance. They have met with Apple, Amazon, and the major cell phone companies to develop a model for paid subscription services.

4.
The Book
You say you will never give up the physical book that you hold in your hand and turn the literal pages. Many said the same thing about downloading music from iTunes because they wanted hard copy CDs. When they discovered they get albums for half the price without ever leaving home to get the latest music they changed their minds. The same thing will happen with books. You can browse a bookstore online and even read a preview chapter before you buy. And the price is less than half that of a real book. Just think of the convenience! Once you start flicking your fingers on the screen instead of the book, you find that you are lost in the story, can't wait to see what happens next, and you forget that you're holding a gadget instead of a book.

5.
The Land Line Telephone
Unless you have a large family and make a lot of local calls, you don't need it anymore. Most people keep it simply because they've always had it. But you are paying double charges for that extra service. All the cell phone companies will let you call customers using the same cell provider for no charge against your minutes

6.
Music
This is one of the saddest parts of the change story. The music industry is dying a slow death. Not just because of illegal downloading. It's the lack of innovative new music being given a chance to get to the people who would like to hear it. Greed and corruption is the problem. The record labels and the radio conglomerates are simply self-destructing. Over 40% of the music purchased today is "catalogue items," meaning traditional music that the public is familiar with. Older established artists. This is also true on the live concert circuit. To explore this fascinating and disturbing topic further, check out the book, "Appetite for Self-Destruction" by Steve Knopper, and the video documentary, "Before the Music Dies."

7.
Television
Revenues to the networks are down dramatically. Not just because of the economy. Many people are watching TV and movies streamed from their computers. And they're playing games and doing lots of other things that take up the time that used to be spent watching TV. Prime time shows have degenerated down to lower than the lowest common denominator. Cable rates are skyrocketing and commercials run about every 4 minutes and 30 seconds. It's time for the cable companies to be put out of our misery. People will choose what they want to watch online and through Netflix.

8.
The "Things" That You Own
Many of the very possessions that we used to own are still in our lives, but we may not actually own them in the future. They may simply reside in "the cloud." Today your computer has a hard drive and you store your pictures, music, movies, and documents. Your software is on a CD or DVD, and you can always re-install it if need be. But all of that is changing. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are all finishing up their latest "cloud services." That means that when you turn on a computer, the Internet will be built into the operating system. So, Windows, Google, and the Mac OS will be tied straight into the Internet. If you click an icon, it will open something in the Internet cloud. If you save something, it will be saved to the cloud. And you may pay a monthly subscription fee to the cloud provider. In this virtual world, you can access your music or your books, or your whatever from any laptop or handheld device. That's the good news. But, will you actually own any of this "stuff" or will it all be able to disappear at any moment in a big "Poof?" Will most of the things in our lives be disposable and whimsical? It makes you want to run to the cupboard and pull out that photo album, grab a book from the shelf, or open up a CD case and pull out the insert.

9.
Privacy
If there ever was a concept that we can look back on nostalgically, it would be privacy. That's gone. It's been gone for a long time anyway. There are cameras on the street, in most of the buildings, and even built into your computer and cell phone. But you can be sure that 24/7, "They" know who you are and where you are, right down to the GPS coordinates, and the Google Street View. If you buy something, your habit is put into a zillion profiles, and your ads will change to reflect those habits. "They" will try to get you to buy something else. Again and again.
All we will have left that can't be changed are "Memories".

Peter’s Comment
Do we really need to be so afraid of the future?
Let’s turn the clock back a little and we’ll see that people have always been sceptical of the future.
It started when it was rumoured that a person called an inventor was working on the development of a new device that would one day be used by almost everyone throughout the world. The device, it was said, would dominate our lives. It would be known as the wheel. People feared the arrival of the wheel.
Fast forward a few centuries. Oops. Fast forward belongs to the 1970s. I want to look at the 1870s. It was rumoured in the 1870s that in the future, wheels, instead of being drawn by horses, would be propelled by a new device that would come to dominate peoples’ lives, the internal combustion engine. People feared the arrival of the engine.
About the same time it was rumoured that in the future man would be able to fly through the air on artificial wings. Man would also be able to talk to his neighbours through a wire mounted on poles, have his stomach opened for surgery without dying from infection and write letters on a writing machine while receiving light from a special globe burning invisible energy. All of these things were feared more than war, plague or poverty.
It was also rumoured that the time was fast approaching when too many people would be literate thereby leaving a shortage of servants for the wealthy. And where would the world be if slavery were abolished?
Then people feared the arrival of ships that would carry 500 people, jet-propelled flying machines that would move faster even than the speed of sound and pocket-size machines that could that could calculate mathematics. All of these things, it was feared, would lead to the destruction of moral and orderly society.
Then people feared what was termed the ‘cashless society’ in which people would no longer carry pockets full of coins and rolls of banknotes but instead would carry a piece of plastic card.
People have always resisted change. Plans for ghastly new buildings always attracted the most vehement protests; the Sydney Opera House, the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Westminster Abbey, Auckland Skytower…
But, wait a minute! Is it not the abovementioned progress that raised man from his cave existence?
Man has always benefitted from progress.
Man will always benefit from progress.



Monday, April 23, 2012

THE MAGIC OF ONIONS

Email: Leftover Onions Are Poisonous
Email examined by David Emery, About.com Guide

Forwarded email claims that uncooked, leftover onions are 'poisonous' because they're 'a huge magnet for bacteria,' therefore especially prone to spoilage.
I have used an onion which has been left in the fridge, and sometimes I don't use a whole one at one time, so save the other half for later.
Now with this info, I have changed my mind.... will buy smaller onions in the future.
I had the wonderful privilege of touring Mullins Food Products, Makers of mayonnaise... Mullins is huge, and is owned by 11 brothers and sisters in the Mullins family. My friend, Jeanne, is the CEO.
Questions about food poisoning came up, and I wanted to share what I learned from a chemist.
The guy who gave us our tour is named Ed. He's one of the brothers Ed is a chemistry expert and is involved in developing most of the sauce formula. He's even developed sauce formula for McDonald's.
Keep in mind that Ed is a food chemistry whiz. During the tour, someone asked if we really needed to worry about mayonnaise. People are always worried that mayonnaise will spoil. Ed's answer will surprise you. Ed said that all commercially-made Mayo is completely safe.
"It doesn't even have to be refrigerated. No harm in refrigerating it, but it's not really necessary." He explained that the pH in mayonnaise is set at a point that bacteria could not survive in that environment. He then talked about the quaint essential picnic, with the bowl of potato salad sitting on the table and how everyone blames the mayonnaise when someone gets sick.
Continued below ....

No amount of onion can ever fix this young man's problems


Download a free sample of this Ebook from:

Ed says that when food poisoning is reported, the first thing the officials look for is when the 'victim' last ate ONIONS and where those onions came from (in the potato salad?). Ed says it's not the mayonnaise (as long as it's not homemade Mayo) that spoils in the outdoors. It's probably the onions, and if not the onions, it's the POTATOES.
He explained, onions are a huge magnet for bacteria, especially uncooked onions. You should never plan to keep a portion of a sliced onion... He says it's not even safe if you put it in a zip-lock bag and put it in your refrigerator.
It's already contaminated enough just by being cut open and out for a bit, that it can be a danger to you (and doubly watch out for those onions you put in your hotdogs at the baseball park!)
Ed says if you take the leftover onion and cook it like crazy you'll probably be okay, but if you slice that leftover onion and put on your sandwich, you're asking for trouble. Both the onions and the moist potato in a potato salad will attract and grow bacteria faster than any commercial mayonnaise will even begin to break down.
So, how's that for news? Take it for what you will. I (the author) am going to be very careful about my onions from now on. For some reason, I see a lot of credibility coming from a chemist and a company that produces millions of pounds of mayonnaise every year.

Analysis: Versions of this text have been circulating since mid-2008, with the earliest examples attributed to food writer "Zola Gorgon" (aka Sarah McCann). I have not been able to locate the exact date or venue of its original appearance.
While the article makes a valid point about the relative safety of commercially-produced mayonnaise versus the other ingredients typically found in homemade potato salad (e.g. onions and potatoes), it exaggerates the danger of keeping and using leftover raw onions.
It's not the onions; it's how you handle them
According to science writer Joe Schwarcz, onions are in no sense a "magnet for bacteria." In fact, Schwarcz writes, cut onions contain enzymes that produce sulphuric acid, which inhibits the growth of germs. Onions can become contaminated during handling, but there's nothing about them that makes them intrinsically more susceptible to bacterial growth or spoilage than any other raw vegetable.
"So unless you have sliced your onions on a contaminated cutting board, or handled them with dirty hands," Schwarcz explains, "you can safely put them in a plastic bag and store them and there will not be any bacterial contamination."
Food folklore: Onions 'attract' or 'collect' infectious bacteria
The notion that onions are a "bacteria magnet" may stem from an old wives' tale dating at least as far back as the 1500s, when it was believed that distributing raw onions around a residence guarded against the bubonic plague and other diseases by "absorbing the elements of infection." Believe it or not, though it has no scientific basis whatsoever,

Detailed Analysis

The terminology that onions are "bacterial magnets" makes no sense. No food attracts bacteria, although of course some are more likely to support bacterial multiplication once infected.
This widely circulated message claims that placing onions around a room can absorb the flu virus and thus prevent people from catching the flu and becoming ill. It tells the story of a farming family that escaped the devastating flu epidemic of 1919 supposedly by placing onions in the rooms of the farmhouse. It relates other cases in which onions supposedly prevented people from getting the flu or at least aided their recovery from illness. According to the message, onions can absorb and contain not only viruses such as those that cause flu but also bacteria that cause other types of illness. The message also claims that placing onions and garlic around rooms saved many people from getting the Black Plague.


However, there is no credible scientific evidence that supports the claims in the message. Scientists have repudiated the idea that onions can act as "magnets" that attract bacteria or viruses. In an article debunking another onion myth (which suggests that raw onions are a “magnet for bacteria” and can therefore make you ill), Dr Joe Schwarcz of McGill University's Office for Science and Society 
explains:
An article on The Chemist's Kitchen website about the humble onion's supposed propensity to attract bacteria concurs with Dr Schwarcz's view, noting:
Nothing is a bacteria magnet. Firstly, bacteria have minimal mobility. They usually travel in water droplets, if at all. Sneezes, for example. Moulds can release spores which get blown around but bacteria usually grows in moist environments and are slimy, making getting airborne difficult. Secondly, if there was such a thing as a 'bacteria magnet' it would be enormously useful in the medical field for drawing bacteria away from the ill and infirmed. Not such use has been made of onions.
And a November 2009 Wall Street Journal article about home flu cures notes:
Biologists say it's highly implausible that onions could attract flu virus as a bug zapper traps flies. Viruses require a living host to replicate and can't propel themselves out of a body and across a room.
When outside of a host, viruses are metabolically inert and cannot reproduce. While outside of host cells, they exist as a protein coat or capsid. If the virus in its inert form comes into contact with a suitable host, it can insert its genetic material into its host. Given these facts, it is stretching credibility to suggest that an onion can somehow magically draw viruses in a room into itself and safely contain them. There is no plausible scientific reason why an onion would have such properties.

As with many such circulated health tips, the message does not present any plausible evidence to back up its claims. The story of the doctor's 1919 visit to the healthy farm family's home, along with the supposed reason for their continued health, is just that - a story. No names or other references are included that would allow the veracity of the story to be checked. And the other incidents described in the message are unsubstantiated, anecdotal, and, in any case, prove nothing. The fact that a group of people - such as the staff in a hairdressing salon - did not contract flu in a particular year can not be seen as credible evidence that onions placed around the room were what stopped them from becoming ill. A cut onion left in a jar is likely to become darkened and "messy" regardless of any supposed ability to absorb germs. The pneumonia sufferer may well have began to feel better just as quickly even if no onion was in her sick room.

The myth that onions can somehow absorb the agents of disease and thereby prevent illness goes back centuries. During the dark and dreadful days of the Black Plague in the 14th century, many believed that a strategically placed onion in a dwelling could indeed ward off the plague. However, this tactic did not "save many from the black plague" as claimed in the message. In truth, onions are no more likely to attract and absorb Bubonic Plague bacteria (or the haemorrhagic fever virus that some researchers suggest may have been the real cause of the Black Death) than they are to absorb and attract more modern threats such as the H1N1 virus (swine flu). Those who lived at the time of the Black Death tended to believe that a miasma - a poisonous vapor or mist - was responsible for spreading the plague. They used many tactics to try to ward off this miasma including strong scents and even loud noises. Given the level of knowledge at the time, it is hardly surprising that people believed that a strong smelling substance such as onion might absorb this deadly miasma. These days, with our much greater understanding of bacteria and viruses and how they spread, it is considerably more surprising that some people still believe that onions can somehow magically drag the agents of disease from the air of a room and render them harmless.

While the idea that onions can attract and absorb bacteria and viruses is frankly rather silly, it should be noted that onions have long been thought to have medicinal benefits when consumed in various ways. And there may be some truth to these claims. The above mentioned Wall Street Journal article notes:
The idea that onions have medicinal properties goes back millennia and spans many cultures. Egyptians thought onions were fertility symbols. Ancient Greeks rubbed them on sore muscles, and Native Americans used them to treat coughs and colds. Herbalists note that the World Health Organization recognizes onion extracts for providing relief in the treatment of coughs, colds, asthma and bronchitis.
And a literature review about the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial properties of garlic and onions published in a 2007 issue of Nutrition & Food Science notes in its abstract:
Both garlic and onions exert their effects on human health via multiple different functions, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial properties. The organosulphur compounds in these spices scavenge oxidizing agents, inhibit the oxidation of fatty acids, thereby preventing the formation of pro-inflammatory messengers, and inhibit bacterial growth, via interaction with sulphur-containing enzymes.
However, the fact that onions may hold some demonstrable medicinal properties, does not in any way validate the fanciful notion that an onion can collect and store bacteria and viruses in a room.

Peter’s Comment
So why do people create and send emails that make spectacular claims? Easy! They want to track the email so they can collect and sell addresses. But to do this they have to spy on you and put harmful bugs on your computer. And here is the nasty bit. No amount of onion will then fix your computer!
So when forwarding emails, you should always remove all previous addresses after you click ‘Forward.’ By doing this you will be helping beat spies and spammers as well as protecting the privacy of others. Below is an example of how not to do it.
Friday, 20 April, 2012 3:47 PM
From:    
To:        "Brian Gullible" <briangullible@sneeze.com>, "Trevor Believer" <faithful@nonsense.co.nz>, "Elizabeth Onion" <lizonion@hotpotato.com>, and maybe dozens more addresses.

To forward an email safely your recipients should see only your address. To do this you should not put the new addresses in the ‘To’ or ‘Cc’ boxes. You should always click ‘Show Bcc’ and insert the addresses in the ‘Bcc’ box as shown below.
Insert addresses (separated by commas)Show Bcc
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: ONIONS

Finally, highlight and delete all the earlier addresses. Then when your email is received by your recipients it will look like this:

FW: Onions

From:    
To:          undisclosed-recipients


Friday, April 13, 2012

RED LIGHT CAMERAS


STOP!

Don’t Break the Law

Running traffic lights is back in the news today after a traffic engineer was fined for proceeding against a yellow light and then being interviewed on New Zealand's Television One’s Close Up.
The traffic engineer believed that she had done nothing wrong and there was some discussion as to the clarity or otherwise of the Road Code. But wait, the Road Code should not have been the document under discussion. The Road Code is only a simplified interpretation of the law and has been known in the past to be at variance with the law. The applicable law is the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004
The rule, obviously drafted by a constipated wordiologist, states that ‘While a steady yellow signal in the form of a disc (a traffic light?) is displayed, - (a) a driver facing the signal must not enter the controlled area while the signal is displayed unless the driver’s vehicle is, when the signal first appears, so close to the controlled area that it cannot safely be stopped before entering the area.’
Similarly, the red light rule forbids a driver from entering the controlled area while facing a red light. There is no mention in this subsection of stopping safely because that option has gone and the driver (if he has complied with (a) above) is either already stopped or is committed to continuing through. The salient word in both situations is ‘entering’ rather than ‘proceeding.’ This is an important distinction but one that often escapes, innocently or deliberately, many enforcement officers. The law says a driver shall not ‘enter’ but the charge is usually worded ‘proceeding’ when it is quite clear that proceeding is often legal and in some situations may actually be obligatory in order to avoid blocking the intersection.
This takes me back to the late eighties when the then Auckland City Traffic Department had red light cameras and they booked me for proceeding against a red light. They had three beautiful colour photographs of my tour coach proceeding through the light at Grafton Bridge to prove their case. But from my interpretation of the law I believed that the photographs proved my defence. My case was that the yellow light appeared while I was too close to the intersection to safely stop and the red light appeared three seconds later after I had already entered the intersection by about two metres.
This EBook is available from:
       Amazon or Smashwords
The City Council disagreed and the case went to court where it was heard by two JPs. The JPs retired to consider their verdict saying they would be back in a couple of minutes. After thirty minutes their raised voices could be heard through the closed door. Their actual words were not distinguishable but I suspected that I had at least one person on my side. Forty minutes after retiring they came back with an incredible compromise – I was found not guilty, but I would have court costs of $65 to pay. In a way they were both winners.
But common sense told me that such a verdict was not legal but I paid the $65 and let the matter rest.
Years later, while applying for work overseas, I was asked to obtain a copy of my court record and, can you believe it, the record showed one conviction – proceeding against a red light.
I felt obliged to set the record straight. The Auckland City Council Traffic Department was long gone but the court was still there and down in the basement an obliging court officer went through the old records of the actual court proceedings. It transpired that the verdict had been illegal and the clerk who had entered the data had altered the verdict so that the computer would accept it.
So, with the help of an officer at Police Headquarters, the record was corrected and everyone lived happily ever after, except that the Department of Courts still owes me $65 plus interest from 1987.


Tuesday, January 24, 2012

FUEL PRICES



What is the truth about fuel prices?

This is a circulating email that I received some time ago.
THIS IS GOOD READING.  BUT READ THE REPLY ALSO.

       THIS IS NOT THE 'DON'T BUY' PETROL FOR ONE DAY, BUT IT WILL SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN GET PETROL BACK DOWN TO $1.00 PER Litre...

This was originally sent by Phillip Hollsworth, a retired Coca Cola executive.
If you are tired of the gas prices going up AND they will continue to rise this winter, take time to read this, PLEASE.

Phillip offered this good idea.

This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the 'don't buy petrol on a certain day' campaign that was going around last April or May!

It is worth your consideration. Join the resistance!!!!


We are going to hit $ 2.50 a litre and it might go higher!! Want petrol prices to come down?

We need to take some intelligent, united action. The oil companies just laughed at last year’s action because they knew we would not continue to 'hurt' ourselves by refusing to buy petrol.  It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them.  BUT whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work.
Please read on and join with us!

By now, you're probably thinking petrol priced at about $1.99 is cheap.
It is currently $2.09 for regular unleaded.

Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a liter of gas is CHEAP at $1.99, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace...not sellers.

With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action...

The only way we are going to see the price of petrol come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their petrol! And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.

How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can't just stop buying petrol.

But we CAN have an impact on petrol prices if we all act together to force a price war.

Here's the idea: For the rest of this year, DON'T purchase ANY petrol from BP
the biggest price-up driver company.

If they are not selling any petrol, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of BP petrol buyers. It's SO simple!
Now, don't wimp out on me at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions and even BILLIONS of people!!

I am sending this note to 20 people..
If each of you sends it on to at least twenty more that's (20 x 20 = 400) ..
And those 400 send it to at least twenty more (400 x 20 = 8000 ... and so on,
by the time the message reaches the fifth group of people, we will have reached over SIXTY FOUR MILLION consumers!!!!!
20x20 = 400
400x20 = 8,000
8,000x20 = 160,000
160,000x20 = 3,200,000
3,200,000x20 = 64,000,000
64,000,000x20 = 12,800,000,000
That's 12.80 Billion people folks, who will have been contacted!!!!!

Unbelievable?? Do the math and see for yourself!
Again, all
you have to do is send this to 20 people.   That's all!
I'll bet you didn't think we had that much potential, did you!
Acting together we can make a difference..
If this message makes sense to you, then please pass it on.
THEY will LOWER THEIR PRICES TO BELOW THE $1.50 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN.
THIS CAN REALLY WORK.
It’s simple – send the message along to others and choose to not buy petrol from BP.
TWENTY FIVE POINT SIX BILLION people:  Now THAT's people power.       LET'S
JUST DO IT ! ! ! More power to you friend.

MY REPLY
FUEL PRICES – THE REALITY


Hi,
   Thanks for the email. It was nice hearing from you.
   Unfortunately, the email you forwarded about fuel prices and how to get them down was circulated several weeks ago, as well as some years ago, and to date I haven't noticed any loss of trade for the companies targeted.
   A closer examination of the theory in the email will reveal that it is just a theory and a flawed one at that.
   The email assumes that 64 million people will all toe the line and forward to twenty others. It goes on to claim that if those 64 million recipients each send to twenty new recipients the message will reach another 12.8 billion people. Well, hello, isn’t the world population just 7 billion? Did someone slip up here?
   In reality less than half of recipients will forward it and of those it may be only forwarded to one or two new recipients. The next problem the theory has is that not everyone who gets the email will be a buyer of petrol. Likewise, not everyone who buys petrol receives emails. A further difficulty lies in the fact that BP and Mobil have more outlets than most others and in many areas the only choice is BP or Mobil.
   Here in New Zealand in the early 1970s petrol prices reached a record high of $1.50 a litre. There was a public outcry and this happened while the price was controlled by Government. Later the Government (about the mid 80s) removed the price controls and immediately there was another public outcry. People feared that fuel prices would go through the roof. It was like the end of the world. But for the next few years petrol prices remained much the same. The oil companies said their margin was too fine to allow price reductions and instead they competed for trade by upgrading their retail outlets and adding new product lines.
   I have no doubt that the major oil companies are in genuine and intense competition with each other and that is a primary reason that it has taken almost four decades for the price of petrol to rise about 30% while the consumer price index over the same period has risen at least 400%. Petrol is now the cheapest fluid of any kind that one can buy. Even bottled water costs more.
  I have never had any involvement with any oil company other than as a consumer of their products, with one exception. About twelve years ago while working for a charter coach operator I was the driver for a day for a group of senior executives (NZ and overseas) from a major oil company (I think it was Mobil). They toured Auckland visiting sites and planning strategies.  It was soon obvious that they were locked into a bitter battle with their rivals for our dollars and that margins were indeed extremely fine. It was also evident that they all engaged in industrial espionage to try and keep ahead of their rivals. For example, Mobil already knew that the BP Bombay at that time sold more litres a year than any other outlet in the country and for any company. And they knew exactly how many litres a year, for Bombay and every other outlet regardless of company.
   Several weeks after the Mobil charter trip, by sheer coincidence, BP hired the same coach operator for a similar trip. I was the driver again and naturally kept quiet the fact that I already knew many of Mobil's secrets and many BP secrets too. It was a very enlightening experience and I am convinced that there is very real competition between the companies and that they will grab any opportunity to steal a march on the opposition.
   In conclusion, I learned a long time ago that we human beings so often protest about all the wrong things while real threats are ignored.
   You will notice that before sending this reply I have deleted all the email addresses except yours. This stops scammers and spammers from picking up email addresses and sending things that may harm your computer or trick you into something you may regret. It's also a good idea to click Bcc at the top of the outgoing email page and to only insert the recipients email addresses in the Bcc panel if sending to multiple recipients. Their addresses will then simply appear as 'undisclosed recipients.'
   Incidentally, getting back to fuel, it was about 1948 (when I was eleven years old) that I first heard that the world was going to run out of oil within five years. Believe me, the world will never run out of oil. The future problem with oil will not be where will it come from, but what will the oil companies do with it when the consumer moves on to more efficient energy sources. That will happen just as surely as consumers a hundred years ago moved from carts to cars. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. It could be decades away, even a century away. Meanwhile, oil is the best thing man has, as it lifts our standard of living and brings prosperity to countless millions of people who were once dirt poor.
   Now that today's lecture is completed, thanks again for your email, please keep in touch and go lightly on the gas pedal. Now, that really will hurt the oil companies.
   Please, send my email on to as many other people as you have in your address book so that this message will give lots of people an alternative view.
Kind regards,
Peter Blakeborough
Author & Publisher
Gypsy Books


People who really want to save money on fuel should park the car, stay at home, and read these great books.




 



Friday, January 20, 2012

THE WORLD IN 500 YEARS

The Great Myth of the Twenty-first Century
In the twenty-first century if we know only one thing about the Greeks of old it will almost certainly be something of ancient Greek mythology. But not everything Greek was mythical. The size and shape of the Earth, to within an accuracy of five per cent, was proposed by Greeks 2,400 years ago, and supported by such learned men as Ptolemy and Aristotle.
Peter Blakeborough in a
Boeing simulator
But many people continued to believe that the Earth was flat. Early sailors feared that if they strayed too far from their home shores they were in danger of falling over the edge. With the approach of the Space Age one Samuel Shenton founded the Flat Earth Society in 1956. An offshoot of the society currently claims on a website that it has existed since 1547.
When the first satellite images taken from space showed the Earth as a sphere the Society responded with, ‘It’s easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye.’
Fortunately, the flat-earthers were not the brightest stars in the sky and in 2012 they have only a few dozen members world-wide and presumably all on the top-side because they don’t believe it would be possible to get a grip on the down-under side.
However, in the early twenty-first century a better organised and more influential band of hoaxers are holding the world to ransom. To understand what they are doing let us undertake a five hundred year time-travel journey into the future.
It is the year 2512. People can live their whole lives in single buildings; work (five to ten hours a week), enjoy leisure time, socializing, shopping, eating and sleeping. A milestone is about to be reached. The world average number of occupants per building has just reached 9,900 and by 2525 it will reach 10,000 people per building.
The majority of people leave their buildings only to take part in some outdoor sporting activities, visit the seaside or the vast parks in the countryside. Everyone regularly takes a few minutes to travel to another country in the weightless comfort of an inverted-orbit space-liner powered by pollution-free, recyclable, chemical-reaction fuel.
Continued below . . . 

LOOK! IT REALLY IS ROUND


Available now as an E-book from Smashwords.com 

It is several hundred years since most people worried about over-population. That was a myth of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The current generation is the healthiest, wealthiest and wisest generation that has ever lived and the future looks even better as the population grows barely at all and the four countries of the world compete for immigrants.
In history classes children learn about the ancient climate change theorists who almost took over the world on the pretense of saving the world and mankind. They will learn how the climate change theorists and alarmists were just as wrong as the earlier flat-earthers.


BEYOND THE SEAS

This is my latest historical novel  Beyond the Seas When twelve-year-old orphan Nathaniel Asker is shipped from the back alleys of London to...