midgephoto

@mackwinston @snacks perhaps one motor lane in the centre, with occasional unloading spaces.

@RaivoKulli (I don't need to think hard about it, I grew up with it running)

@RaivoKulli Why wouldn't they be? If they sell a thousand cans they've paid a thousand deposits.
If they return a thousand cans they get back their thousand deposits.

The cans, as with R White's lemonade bottles once upon a time, are fungible.

They'll need a tin of pennies.

@TWeaK @RaivoKulli B12 consumption causing spinal cord degeneration is an issue.
Also N2O is a greenhouse gas, and supports combustion more effectively than pure oxygen, not very bad in small quantities and controlle,d spaces.

@RaivoKulli @TWeaK if someone hands you 10 cans, they've handed you 10 cans. How don't you know?
They don't need tracking.

(If a store hands you 100kg of cans, they've handed you 100kg. Audit would need you to weigh them and know their name, but little else.)

@tal @0x815 Or perhaps in some places when they build something in 1990 with a predicted lifetime of 30 years, say, they simultaneously write in the 2018 diary" get bids to replace X starting in next 2 years"?

@wewbull
That's categorical thought, which is an error with a continuous variable such as speed.

That they break, or do not break, the law ("rule" doesn't quite describe it).

You may also care to consider that if one driver does not exceed the limit, it moderates the speed of others behind - you've presented this as an individual decision, uninfluenced by others, but even taken as a guideline others have influence.

@wewbull @Syldon
If by speeding you mean 35 in a 30 zone, then will the drivers who know their journey is urgent and important, as are try, and that they are more skillful than those around them, drive 15mph above the limit, or 5mph?

They'll stand out rather more if the former, and have a likelihood of killing a hit pedestrian or cyclist reduced by the change if the latter.

I suspect the chap recently apprehended for 61 in a 30 zone past children might not change, yes.

@wewbull @Syldon You compared the two.

@tal @Mex
One can trade, if one has something others want as much as what they have that we want.
If the food supply in the world becomes insufficient for the people in the world, then yes, some may eat and others may starve. Solutions which avoid that have more merit than those that rearrange the queue.

Note that considerable of the food production in the UK is dependent on the Gulf Stream.

@merridew
... suspect we are under-immjnising; boosting here, and our interests would be better served by assisting more distant neighbours more.

@merridew sounds fair. Potential, easily available.
Someone might chip in at this point, noting the suggested rate, to ask if we can think of anything else to spend G£400 on that might be more useful.
And most of us would point to some sort of crossover, applying some resources to this and some to (those) other things.
And then there are the loonies, quacks, and horrors with their views, but enough of them.

I suspect ...