In message <uhuhtp$1q8ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:02:33 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>> Depending on where he lives Roland might find his plot will be under the
>> North Sea. So will Ely railway station. Rail Replacement Boats anyone?
>
>I know someone who lives not far from Roland and I think his house is
>techically at 0’ AMSL. Its definitely below the level of the rivers. I
>think Roland lives on the Isle of Ely, though, so he’ll probably be OK.

According to Google Earth my land is 8m ASL. The tracks at Ely Station
are 4m ASL.
--
Roland Perry

On 02/11/2023 17:57, Certes wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 02/11/2023 16:48, Recliner wrote:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 02/11/2023 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> On 02/11/2023 14:22, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:59:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/11/2023 11:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> One effect is that Northwest Passage cruises are now routine, and
>>>>>>>> Russia
>>>>>>>> hopes to open up a Northeast Passage shipping route.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem there is the route is available but no one wants to
>>>>>>> use it.
>>>>>>> Though, presumably it will be useful for European Russia and China
>>>>>>> trade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> China-Europe is the target market  It's much shorter than the
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> routes, particularly for ships too large for the
>>>>>> Suez Canal.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, as I said, no-one outside of Russia wants to use it.
>>>>
>>>> As there is mandatory (Russian) pilotage etc I wonder if sanctions
>>>> would
>>>> preclude any China / Europe traffic (OK, China / Russia traffic no
>>>> problem).
>>>
>>> Would Chinese ships, insured by Chinese companies, carrying Chinese
>>> exports, be troubled by that?
>>
>> Assuming they would be allowed to dock anywhere outside of Russia if
>> they did come that way.
>
> Are we boycotting ships just for passing through Russian waters, even if
> they're not contributing to the Russian economy (except perhaps by
> briefly employing a pilot)?  Is it even necessary to enter Russian
> territory to use the passage?

You have to pass through Russian territorial waters, hence they can
insist on you taking a Russian pilot. Depends how individual countries
want to apply sanctions. Also whether dockers in the destination
countries will actually handle the ships, though that is a fading
problem I suspect.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 02/11/2023 20:34, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 17:57, Certes wrote:
>> On 02/11/2023 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2023 16:48, Recliner wrote:
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 02/11/2023 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/11/2023 14:22, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:59:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2023 11:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One effect is that Northwest Passage cruises are now routine, and
>>>>>>>>> Russia
>>>>>>>>> hopes to open up a Northeast Passage shipping route.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem there is the route is available but no one wants to
>>>>>>>> use it.
>>>>>>>> Though, presumably it will be useful for European Russia and China
>>>>>>>> trade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> China-Europe is the target market  It's much shorter than the
>>>>>>> existing
>>>>>>> routes, particularly for ships too large for the
>>>>>>> Suez Canal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, as I said, no-one outside of Russia wants to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> As there is mandatory (Russian) pilotage etc I wonder if sanctions
>>>>> would
>>>>> preclude any China / Europe traffic (OK, China / Russia traffic no
>>>>> problem).
>>>>
>>>> Would Chinese ships, insured by Chinese companies, carrying Chinese
>>>> exports, be troubled by that?
>>>
>>> Assuming they would be allowed to dock anywhere outside of Russia if
>>> they did come that way.
>>
>> Are we boycotting ships just for passing through Russian waters, even if
>> they're not contributing to the Russian economy (except perhaps by
>> briefly employing a pilot)?  Is it even necessary to enter Russian
>> territory to use the passage?
>
> You have to pass through Russian territorial waters, hence they can
> insist on you taking a Russian pilot. Depends how individual countries
> want to apply sanctions. Also whether dockers in the destination
> countries will actually handle the ships, though that is a fading
> problem I suspect.

I was thinking of using the Alaskan side of the Bering Strait then
keeping far enough north to avoid Russian waters, but there may be
places where the solid ice reaches close enough to the coast to make
that impossible. It's a part of the world few people know well.

In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:

>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>>>(which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>
>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.

>> So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>
>Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>constantly snooped on.

Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the same
as being "snooped on".

--
Roland Perry

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 16:44, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2023 14:22, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:59:48 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/11/2023 11:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 13:51:47 +0000, Recliner
>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 09:18:15 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:16:48 +0000, Recliner
>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:46:58 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland was right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicted sea levels will rise between 11 and 21 inches (28 – 55cm) by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of the century. However, they note that a sea level rise of over 6 feet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can’t be ruled out under a worst case scenario."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.asoc.org/learn/antarctic-ice-and-rising-sea-levels/#impacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This was written before the recent discovery that Antarctic sea ice is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> melting far more quickly than expected. In fact 2023 has been an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye-opener with several Holy Shit moments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This report is from April this year:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm talking later than that.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There have also been record temperatures, again, and not by a feather.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, global warming is real, and now inevitable. We need to find
>>>>>>>>>> engineering solutions or mitigations, because it's now
>>>>>>>>>> too late to stop the trend.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We agree on that. I was pointing out there have been a number of
>>>>>>>>> stories very very recently pointing out that the measured effects of
>>>>>>>>> warming are shocking climate scientists. This year there appears to
>>>>>>>>> have been a bit of a step change. Past estimates, even pessimistic
>>>>>>>>> ones, are now looking somewhat optimistic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With more water vapour in the atmosphere, won't there be more snowfall
>>>>>>>> in Antarctica and over Greenland?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, you can make no such statements about precipitation in a
>>>>>>> particular place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wasn't assuming any such thing. I was assuming more precipitation
>>>>>> *everywhere*, including snow on glaciers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's about the balance if ice being added and
>>>>>>> removed. We've known for a long time that temperature increase has
>>>>>>> been far more extreme in the Arctic than elsewhere. Now it looks as if
>>>>>>> the Antarctic is playing catchup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Arctic has the particular problem that if the white sea ice melts and
>>>>>> is replaced by dark water, more solar radiation will be absorbed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One effect is that Northwest Passage cruises are now routine, and Russia
>>>>>> hopes to open up a Northeast Passage shipping route.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem there is the route is available but no one wants to use it.
>>>>> Though, presumably it will be useful for European Russia and China trade.
>>>>
>>>> China-Europe is the target market It's much shorter than the existing
>>>> routes, particularly for ships too large for the
>>>> Suez Canal.
>>>
>>> But, as I said, no-one outside of Russia wants to use it.
>>>
>>
>> Why would China not want to use it? And Putin's war won't go on forever.
>>
>
> The main problem is that the modern container trade involves routes that
> set down and pick up at many places en route, a bit like old fashioned
> rail-freight. So the big ships coming from China to the the west will be
> also be serving India, the Arabian peninsular, Africa and/or the
> Mediterranean. The North-East passage bypasses all those. So it is
> really only useful for direct Far East - North-western Europe trade.
>
> As Colin suggests, there is currently the sanctions problem with Russia,
> and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon. Possibly
> not till someone assassinates Putin.

Which, hopefully, will be soon…

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uhuca1$1p7ld$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:26:41 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, my new SUV can wade through <drumroll> 50cm, so that's OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope it can handle waves and tides!
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how many of either are going to be presenting themselves 40
>>>> miles inland.
>
>>> Do you think you’ll still be 40 miles inland?
>>
>> Depending on where he lives Roland might find his plot will be under
>> the North Sea. So will Ely railway station. Rail Replacement Boats
>> anyone?
>
> My house is significantly higher than Ely Railway station, hence my
> numerous references to the risk to the Fen Line which are clearly
> falling on deaf ears.

What makes you think your references to the Fen Line are being ignored?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <uhuhtp$1q8ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:02:33 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> Depending on where he lives Roland might find his plot will be under the
>>> North Sea. So will Ely railway station. Rail Replacement Boats anyone?
>>
>> I know someone who lives not far from Roland and I think his house is
>> techically at 0’ AMSL. Its definitely below the level of the rivers. I
>> think Roland lives on the Isle of Ely, though, so he’ll probably be OK.
>
> According to Google Earth my land is 8m ASL. The tracks at Ely Station
> are 4m ASL.

I’m surprised it’s only that. The tracks cross the river immediately to
the north of the station and, on the eastern line, pretty close the station
on the south. In both cases there is clearance for navigation and I think
that river is one that is above sea level.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 02/11/2023 17:57, Certes wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 17:46, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 02/11/2023 16:48, Recliner wrote:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 02/11/2023 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>>>> On 02/11/2023 14:22, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:59:48 +0000, Graeme Wall
>>>>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02/11/2023 11:54, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> One effect is that Northwest Passage cruises are now routine, and
>>>>>>>> Russia
>>>>>>>> hopes to open up a Northeast Passage shipping route.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem there is the route is available but no one wants to
>>>>>>> use it.
>>>>>>> Though, presumably it will be useful for European Russia and China
>>>>>>> trade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> China-Europe is the target market  It's much shorter than the
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> routes, particularly for ships too large for the
>>>>>> Suez Canal.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, as I said, no-one outside of Russia wants to use it.
>>>>
>>>> As there is mandatory (Russian) pilotage etc I wonder if sanctions
>>>> would
>>>> preclude any China / Europe traffic (OK, China / Russia traffic no
>>>> problem).
>>>
>>> Would Chinese ships, insured by Chinese companies, carrying Chinese
>>> exports, be troubled by that?
>>
>> Assuming they would be allowed to dock anywhere outside of Russia if
>> they did come that way.
>
> Are we boycotting ships just for passing through Russian waters, even if
> they're not contributing to the Russian economy (except perhaps by
> briefly employing a pilot)?  Is it even necessary to enter Russian
> territory to use the passage?

And, if my memory is correct, there is a need for Russian state-owned
icebreakers for escort duties at the start and end of the navigable
season. And I did say "I wonder if" ...

--
Colin

On 02/11/2023 21:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>
>>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>>>> (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>
>>>  So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>>
>> Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>> none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>> constantly snooped on.
>
> Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the same
> as being "snooped on".

Anyone who doubts that it will be used to compile a list of who has done
what on which websites, or that such a list will not be left on a train,
is very naive. Of course, that ability is there already by tapping into
the ISP feeds, but this law makes it much easier and fills gaps such as
anonymous use of public wi-fi.

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 21:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>>>>> (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>>>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>>>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>>>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>>>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>>
>>>>  So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>>>
>>> Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>>> none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>>> constantly snooped on.
>>
>> Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the same
>> as being "snooped on".
>
> Anyone who doubts that it will be used to compile a list of who has done
> what on which websites, or that such a list will not be left on a train,
> is very naive. Of course, that ability is there already by tapping into
> the ISP feeds, but this law makes it much easier and fills gaps such as
> anonymous use of public wi-fi.
>

The cat is already out of the bag in respect of being snooped upon. Meta
have an operation that the East German state could only dream about. It
even has shadow records for people who don’t willingly participate with
their products. The fact that it can go about its business like this
unhindered by national governments ought to tell you something about who
else gets to use that information.

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 22:35:49 +0000, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>
>And, if my memory is correct, there is a need for Russian state-owned
>icebreakers for escort duties at the start and end of the navigable
>season. And I did say "I wonder if" ...

Is it too much to hope that marine navigation is kept out
international politics? ISTR in the days before aircraft had global
communications planes would relay each others messages even if the
countries whose flags they carried were extremely hostile to each
other.

On 03/11/2023 07:57, Tweed wrote:
> Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2023 21:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>>>>>> (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>>>>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>>>>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>>>>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>>>>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>>>
>>>>>  So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>>>>
>>>> Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>>>> none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>>>> constantly snooped on.
>>>
>>> Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the same
>>> as being "snooped on".
>>
>> Anyone who doubts that it will be used to compile a list of who has done
>> what on which websites, or that such a list will not be left on a train,
>> is very naive. Of course, that ability is there already by tapping into
>> the ISP feeds, but this law makes it much easier and fills gaps such as
>> anonymous use of public wi-fi.
>
> The cat is already out of the bag in respect of being snooped upon. Meta
> have an operation that the East German state could only dream about. It
> even has shadow records for people who don’t willingly participate with
> their products. The fact that it can go about its business like this
> unhindered by national governments ought to tell you something about who
> else gets to use that information.

If you mean Meta, I think I've done a reasonable job of keeping my data
out of their reach. I don't mind if they phone home with what little
they do have, as I've no plans to visit the US and I'm far too boring to
be worth an international data sharing request.

On 02/11/2023 21:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>
>>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>>>> (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>
>>>  So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>>
>> Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>> none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>> constantly snooped on.
>
> Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the same
> as being "snooped on".
>
It is because they know exactly who you are.

On 02/11/2023 21:41, Recliner wrote:

>> As Colin suggests, there is currently the sanctions problem with Russia,
>> and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon. Possibly
>> not till someone assassinates Putin.
>
> Which, hopefully, will be soon…
>

Frying pan and fire, very possibly.

--
Order alone is boring; complexity alone is chaos

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 14:12:45 +0000, JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:

>On 02/11/2023 21:41, Recliner wrote:
>
>>> As Colin suggests, there is currently the sanctions problem with Russia,
>>> and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon. Possibly
>>> not till someone assassinates Putin.
>>
>> Which, hopefully, will be soon…
>>
>
>Frying pan and fire, very possibly.

His replacement may be just as obnoxious, but the change of leadership would give him an excuse to stop Putin's war.
They can claim that all the SMO's objectives were achieved, and the Nazis removed, so life could return to normal (ie,
the rulers stealing the state's wealth, rather than blowing it up).

In message <ui2njq$2p417$1@dont-email.me>, Certes <Certes@example.org>
writes
>If you mean Meta, I think I've done a reasonable job of keeping my data
>out of their reach. I don't mind if they phone home with what little
>they do have, as I've no plans to visit the US and I'm far too boring to
>be worth an international data sharing request.

You might have done a good job, but it doesn't follow that your
"friends" have done so on your behalf. I've never had an account on any
of their systems, yet they've known about me for at least 13 years after
an acquaintance put up a photo (not sure where from) of me on there.
"What you don't know can't hurt you" was her response when asked about
it.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 14:34:06 +0000
Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>In message <ui2njq$2p417$1@dont-email.me>, Certes <Certes@example.org>
>writes
>>If you mean Meta, I think I've done a reasonable job of keeping my data
>>out of their reach. I don't mind if they phone home with what little
>>they do have, as I've no plans to visit the US and I'm far too boring to
>>be worth an international data sharing request.
>
>You might have done a good job, but it doesn't follow that your
>"friends" have done so on your behalf. I've never had an account on any
>of their systems, yet they've known about me for at least 13 years after
>an acquaintance put up a photo (not sure where from) of me on there.
>"What you don't know can't hurt you" was her response when asked about
>it.

Meta only need one photo of you and their AI can scan all the billions of
photos they have for a match of your face, place you when (from the exif data)
and possibly even where you were if it has GPS co-ords in it and/or someone has
helpfully annotated it and work out a partial timeline of your life.

I've tried to keep all pictures of myself off the internet though like all of
us I must be on hundreds of tourist pics by now so even if they don't know
who I am they could in theory still do a partial timeline.

On Fri, 03 Nov 2023 09:26:22 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 22:35:49 +0000, ColinR
><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>And, if my memory is correct, there is a need for Russian state-owned
>>icebreakers for escort duties at the start and end of the navigable
>>season. And I did say "I wonder if" ...
>
>Is it too much to hope that marine navigation is kept out
>international politics? ISTR in the days before aircraft had global
>communications planes would relay each others messages even if the
>countries whose flags they carried were extremely hostile to each
>other.
>
Anything involving a reasonable amount of dosh usually finds some way
of getting past sanctions. Pilotage etc. seems ripe for regard as a
mutually essential service.

In message <ui155l$2difu$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:43:17 on Thu, 2 Nov
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uhuhtp$1q8ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:02:33 on Wed, 1 Nov
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> Depending on where he lives Roland might find his plot will be under the
>>>> North Sea. So will Ely railway station. Rail Replacement Boats anyone?
>>>
>>> I know someone who lives not far from Roland and I think his house is
>>> techically at 0’ AMSL. Its definitely below the level of the rivers. I
>>> think Roland lives on the Isle of Ely, though, so he’ll probably be OK.
>>
>> According to Google Earth my land is 8m ASL. The tracks at Ely Station
>> are 4m ASL.
>
>I’m surprised it’s only that. The tracks cross the river immediately to
>the north of the station and, on the eastern line, pretty close the station
>on the south. In both cases there is clearance for navigation and I think
>that river is one that is above sea level.

The official headroom under the railway bridge just north of the station
is 3.06m, and it's a truss design (no pork markets involved) where the
tracks are not very far above the lowest bit of the truss. [Roughly
speaking visualise two parallel RSJs with the sleepers on the bottom
flange]

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5765703
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1622566

Like the nearby underpass, I have surveyed both in great detail.

The river at Ely is usually around 0.55m - this morning it's 0.44m
because they are letting lots of water out at Denver, in order to be
able to accommodate runoff from the recent heavy rains. The highest I've
seen it myself in the last ten years is 0.65m, at which point there's a
handful of boats which can't make it under the slightly downstream truss
bridge (headroom 3.1m). {Those boats - Dutch barges mainly - would not
expect to be able to reliably get under the upstream railway bridge}

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4879196

Remember also that "Sea Level" is the average, and the tidal range at
Kings Lynn is typically 8m, so you can only actually let water out under
gravity for a few hours of the day - at low tide. Most of the time the
barrier at Denver is preventing the tide from flooding upstream, which
is of course why they built it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ui155j$2difu$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:43:15 on Thu, 2 Nov
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uhuca1$1p7ld$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:26:41 on Wed, 1 Nov
>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, my new SUV can wade through <drumroll> 50cm, so that's OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope it can handle waves and tides!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how many of either are going to be presenting themselves 40
>>>>> miles inland.
>>
>>>> Do you think you’ll still be 40 miles inland?
>>>
>>> Depending on where he lives Roland might find his plot will be under
>>> the North Sea. So will Ely railway station. Rail Replacement Boats
>>> anyone?
>>
>> My house is significantly higher than Ely Railway station, hence my
>> numerous references to the risk to the Fen Line which are clearly
>> falling on deaf ears.
>
>What makes you think your references to the Fen Line are being ignored?

Some scepticism being expressed about exactly how low bits of it are.

--
Roland Perry

In message <ui2o38$2p4b4$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:12:24 on Fri, 3 Nov
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 02/11/2023 21:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your
>>>>>>age (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>>>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>>>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>>>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>>>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>>
>>>>  So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>>>
>>> Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>>> none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>>> constantly snooped on.

>> Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the
>>same as being "snooped on".
>>
>It is because they know exactly who you are.

Not necessarily, for example our blue badge doesn't have a name or photo
on the front, only the back. Quite deliberately.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ui18ae$2e4kn$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:37:01 on Thu, 2 Nov
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 02/11/2023 21:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uhu0oq$1n2if$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:09:46 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your
>>>>>>age (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law)
>>>>>>you might want to review your choice of such platforms in the
>>>>>>face of their institutional intransigence in taking down things
>>>>>>like videos of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos
>>>>>>are protected by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>>
>>>>  So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.
>>>
>>> Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
>>> none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
>>> constantly snooped on.

>> Asking you to present credentials for access to a site is not the
>>same as being "snooped on".
>
>Anyone who doubts that it will be used to compile a list of who has done
>what on which websites, or that such a list will not be left on a train,
>is very naive. Of course, that ability is there already by tapping into
>the ISP feeds, but this law makes it much easier and fills gaps such as
>anonymous use of public wi-fi.

Your 1990's tinfoil hat is quite cute, but perhaps time to retire it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uhu4k1$1nr41$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:15:29 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uhtlfd$1kt1f$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:57:01 on Wed, 1 Nov
>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>> On 01/11/2023 12:55, Certes wrote:
>>>> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>>>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>>>> lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>>>> government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>>>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
>>>>> should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
>>>>> children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe
>>>>> them using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into
>>>>> an orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.
>>
>>>> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>>>> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>>>> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>>>> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.
>>>
>>> I'm very protective of my ID and most certainly do not trust social
>>> media companies with copies of it. I would sooner terminate my use of
>>> their services.
>>
>> "Your ID" is a complex concept. I've been doing some CHAPs transfers
>> recently, and I'm absolutely 100% sure the bank would not accept my
>> Twitter-handle and password as proof I was who I claimed to be.
>>
>>> What interests me is that so many organisations seem to be very
>>> dependent on the outfit formally known as Twitter for customer
>>> communication and I wonder what plans they have if the outfit is unable
>>> to provide services in various markets. Or all markets come to that.
>>
>> Commercial organisations have been fleeing Twitter for quite some time.
>> They are probably more interested in Facebook and TikTok this week.
>>
>> They are also probably quite relieved that aggrieved customers sounding
>> off on Twitter will be listened to by fewer and fewer people.
>
>Presumably the advertiser-flight is why every third or fourth eX-tweet I
>see on eX-Twitter is the same advert.

I don't get very many tweets at all on my feed. Maybe a dozen a day,
none adverts. I can cope with that volume, especially as I only look
about once a month.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ui155l$2difu$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:43:17 on Thu, 2 Nov
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uhuhtp$1q8ac$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:02:33 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> Depending on where he lives Roland might find his plot will be under the
>>>>> North Sea. So will Ely railway station. Rail Replacement Boats anyone?
>>>>
>>>> I know someone who lives not far from Roland and I think his house is
>>>> techically at 0’ AMSL. Its definitely below the level of the rivers. I
>>>> think Roland lives on the Isle of Ely, though, so he’ll probably be OK.
>>>
>>> According to Google Earth my land is 8m ASL. The tracks at Ely Station
>>> are 4m ASL.
>>
>> I’m surprised it’s only that. The tracks cross the river immediately to
>> the north of the station and, on the eastern line, pretty close the station
>> on the south. In both cases there is clearance for navigation and I think
>> that river is one that is above sea level.
>
> The official headroom under the railway bridge just north of the station
> is 3.06m, and it's a truss design (no pork markets involved) where the
> tracks are not very far above the lowest bit of the truss. [Roughly
> speaking visualise two parallel RSJs with the sleepers on the bottom
> flange]
>
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5765703
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1622566
>
> Like the nearby underpass, I have surveyed both in great detail.
>
> The river at Ely is usually around 0.55m - this morning it's 0.44m
> because they are letting lots of water out at Denver, in order to be
> able to accommodate runoff from the recent heavy rains. The highest I've
> seen it myself in the last ten years is 0.65m, at which point there's a
> handful of boats which can't make it under the slightly downstream truss
> bridge (headroom 3.1m). {Those boats - Dutch barges mainly - would not
> expect to be able to reliably get under the upstream railway bridge}
>
> https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4879196
>
> Remember also that "Sea Level" is the average, and the tidal range at
> Kings Lynn is typically 8m, so you can only actually let water out under
> gravity for a few hours of the day - at low tide. Most of the time the
> barrier at Denver is preventing the tide from flooding upstream, which
> is of course why they built it.

Thank you!

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 03/11/2023 14:12, JohnD wrote:
> On 02/11/2023 21:41, Recliner wrote:
>
>>> As Colin suggests, there is currently the sanctions problem with Russia,
>>> and it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon. Possibly
>>> not till someone assassinates Putin.
>>
>> Which, hopefully, will be soon…
>>
>
> Frying pan and fire, very possibly.
>

That happens all too often after "violent" changes in leadership. Thing
go from "not very good" to "a lot worse". We all know lots of countries
where that has happened.