OT: Apologies

wafflycat said:

"Jim Price" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth where I
am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. > >

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong... but you seem to think that you need
a satellite for Freeview or Top-up TV, which you don't. I don't have
satellite, but do have Freeview & Top-up TV, as they come via a set-top box
plugged into normal arial. Top-Up TV is a an extra few channels for a small
subscription, activated via card in freeview box.

If you can't get terrestrial digital (which many people can't) then
satellite or a long holiday is the only option.

<lightbulb>
Having discovered that I have some keen users of my software at a uni
in Paris...
</lightbulb>

...d

wafflycat said:

"Jim Price" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

"Daniel Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

> Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
>
>> every other indicator of material
>> wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.
>
>
> Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?

No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth
where I am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. I
would say in my case that its an indicator that you are living in a
place where you can step out of the front door and find yourself in
the middle of fantastic cycling country, and I still want to keep up
with the TdF.

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong... but you seem to think that you
need a satellite for Freeview or Top-up TV, which you don't. I don't
have satellite, but do have Freeview & Top-up TV, as they come via a
set-top box plugged into normal arial. Top-Up TV is a an extra few
channels for a small subscription, activated via card in freeview box.

I'll forgive you for reading it wrong - I meant I will need satellite to
keep up with the TdF as I won't be able to get Freeview or Top-Up TV
through an aerial because there is no digital terrestrial TV coverage
where I'm moving. I'm relying on the channel the TdF gets shown on being
available on satellite.

Quoted message said:

I have this and still live in the middle of fantastic cycling country
and keep up with the TdF 🙂

My future fantastic cycling country has hills the like of which TV
signals (and some cyclists) have trouble getting over.

Quoted message said:

I am not, however, wealthy in monetary terms!

Wealth wise, I'm hoping the local church mouse is called Jones so I can
keep up with him.

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

David Martin said:

wafflycat said:

"Jim Price" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth where I
am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. > >

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong... but you seem to think that you need
a satellite for Freeview or Top-up TV, which you don't. I don't have
satellite, but do have Freeview & Top-up TV, as they come via a set-top box
plugged into normal arial. Top-Up TV is a an extra few channels for a small
subscription, activated via card in freeview box.

If you can't get terrestrial digital (which many people can't) then
satellite or a long holiday is the only option.

<lightbulb>
Having discovered that I have some keen users of my software at a uni
in Paris...
</lightbulb>

I don't suppose you need an assistant around July...

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

in message <[email hidden]>, wafflycat

('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') said:

"Jim Price" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth
where I am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. I
would say in my case that its an indicator that you are living in a
place where you can step out of the front door and find yourself in
the middle of fantastic cycling country, and I still want to keep up
with the TdF.

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong... but you seem to think that you
need a satellite for Freeview or Top-up TV, which you don't.

No, he needs a satellite because he's in the middle of the Cairngorms,
which are not quite as flat as Norfolk. Do keep up at the back.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

On 10 Jan 2006 09:09:51 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Elementary, Watson. Same distribution, with a higher mean.

Quoted message said:

So you are planning on the highest-earning cyclist earning more than
the highest-earning member of the population?

The distribution has a long tail, which has little or no effect on the
mean. This much is known.

And I simply can't be arsed to argue the toss over meaningless
semantic differences any more, because in the end a difference which
makes no difference is no difference.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Simon Brooke said:

No, he needs a satellite because he's in the middle of the Cairngorms,
which are not quite as flat as Norfolk. Do keep up at the back.

Not quite that lumpy Simon - I'm talking Cambrian mountains.

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

Jim Price said:

Quoted message said:

I am not, however, wealthy in monetary terms!

Wealth wise, I'm hoping the local church mouse is called Jones so I can
keep up with him.

Ah, but if you count wealth as being ten minutes min commute to work,
able to put the kids to bed and then fit in a 2 hour ride through
virtually car free roads in a country where they conveniently keep the
sun on a bit longer in the summer, with a choice of rolling, hills, or
flat as the mood takes, then indeed I am very wealthy. In monetary
terms though, not a chance..

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Jim Price

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

No, he needs a satellite because he's in the middle of the Cairngorms,
which are not quite as flat as Norfolk. Do keep up at the back.

Not quite that lumpy Simon - I'm talking Cambrian mountains.

Ooops, sorry. Had you confused with someone else.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll

David Martin said:

Jim Price said:

Quoted message said:

I am not, however, wealthy in monetary terms!

Wealth wise, I'm hoping the local church mouse is called Jones so I can
keep up with him.

Ah, but if you count wealth as being ten minutes min commute to work,
able to put the kids to bed and then fit in a 2 hour ride through
virtually car free roads in a country where they conveniently keep the
sun on a bit longer in the summer, with a choice of rolling, hills, or
flat as the mood takes, then indeed I am very wealthy. In monetary
terms though, not a chance..

Rumour has it that the local church mouse can't ride a bike, so I've got
him on that one ;-)

I will have a selection of pubs from the last millenium (almost all of
it) conveniently placed for cycling touring, and this bridge:
http://www.brantacan.co.uk/wyebridges2.htm#LSB
My grandfather was the first person to take a horse and cart over it. I
plan to ride down one side of the Wye, cross it and come back the other
side. Onabike. Often.

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

Jim Price said:

David Martin said:

Jim Price said:

>I am not, however, wealthy in monetary terms!

Wealth wise, I'm hoping the local church mouse is called Jones so I can
keep up with him.

Ah, but if you count wealth as being ten minutes min commute to work,
able to put the kids to bed and then fit in a 2 hour ride through
virtually car free roads in a country where they conveniently keep the
sun on a bit longer in the summer, with a choice of rolling, hills, or
flat as the mood takes, then indeed I am very wealthy. In monetary
terms though, not a chance..

Quoted message said:

I will have a selection of pubs from the last millenium (almost all of
it) conveniently placed for cycling touring, and this bridge:
http://www.brantacan.co.uk/wyebridges2.htm#LSB

Well, if it is bridges you want..
http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/sunset.html
And one or two castles as well. I'll have to try to put together a
'ride of the 100 castles' at some point ;-)

Looks like you are moving to a lovely area and it is probably a bit
warmer down there for growing your own fruit and veg too.

...d

David Martin said:

Well, if it is bridges you want..
http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/sunset.html

Wow.

Quoted message said:

Looks like you are moving to a lovely area and it is probably a bit
warmer down there for growing your own fruit and veg too.

That is another part of the plan (checks sig for inconsistency).

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Jim Price

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

No, he needs a satellite because he's in the middle of the Cairngorms,
which are not quite as flat as Norfolk. Do keep up at the back.

Not quite that lumpy Simon - I'm talking Cambrian mountains.

Ooops, sorry. Had you confused with someone else.

Do keep up at the back, Simon ;-)

Cheers, helen s

you know? said:

And I simply can't be arsed to argue the toss over meaningless
semantic differences any more,

It's not a meaningless difference - it fundamentally changes what the
statement means. In one case, it implies cyclists are a distinctly
elite subset of the population, in another that they are merely
incremently (possibly vanishingly so) different to the population at
large.

One meaning implies 50% of cyclists come from a fairly small portion
of the population. The alternative means that 50.000001% of cyclists
come from 49.999999% of the population. That is a significant
difference.

The fact that you think it makes no difference probably says more
about your perception of what it means, however.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

wafflycat said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Jim Price

(') said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

> No, he needs a satellite because he's in the middle of the Cairngorms,
> which are not quite as flat as Norfolk. Do keep up at the back.

Not quite that lumpy Simon - I'm talking Cambrian mountains.

Ooops, sorry. Had you confused with someone else.

Do keep up at the back, Simon ;-)

Is the treatment for breaking it to keep it up? ;-)

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

in message <[email hidden]>, Jim Price

(') said:

David Martin said:

Well, if it is bridges you want..
http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/sunset.html

Wow.

Quoted message said:

Looks like you are moving to a lovely area and it is probably a bit
warmer down there for growing your own fruit and veg too.

That is another part of the plan (checks sig for inconsistency).
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

That's all right, it's inconsistent.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

On 11 Jan 2006 18:50:10 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I simply can't be arsed to argue the toss over meaningless
semantic differences any more,

Quoted message said:

It's not a meaningless difference - it fundamentally changes what the
statement means. In one case, it implies cyclists are a distinctly
elite subset of the population, in another that they are merely
incremently (possibly vanishingly so) different to the population at
large.

The report stated, as I recall, that cyclists were more likely to be
above average income, more likely to be house owners, more likely to
be car owners, more likely to own ever measure of material wealth
except satellite TV (and that was before the Tour was broadcast live
on satellite).

Not massively, not vastly, just a bit. No elitism involved. Quite
plausible since the whole of Tilehurst is full of chavs who drive 100
yards to the chip shop, whereas the City is chock-full of gents on
Bromptons.

Plausible, but not Received Truth so not really a fit subject for
religious arguments.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

you know? said:

On 11 Jan 2006 18:50:10 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I simply can't be arsed to argue the toss over meaningless
semantic differences any more,

Quoted message said:

It's not a meaningless difference - it fundamentally changes what the
statement means. In one case, it implies cyclists are a distinctly
elite subset of the population, in another that they are merely
incremently (possibly vanishingly so) different to the population at
large.

The report stated, as I recall, that cyclists were more likely to be
above average income,

That's a bit different from what was recently reported (which was not
defined water-tightly, but apparently interpretable as claiming that
most cyclists had an above average income). That a higher proportion
of cyclists have an above average income than in the population as a
whole is not particularly unlikely, imo.

The rest of it:

Quoted message said:

more likely to be house owners, more likely to
be car owners, more likely to own ever measure of material wealth
except satellite TV (and that was before the Tour was broadcast live
on satellite).

is similarly plausible.

Thank you. If the actual reference (ideally in an easy, free format
like kicking about on the web) comes to hand, I'd be pleased to know
of it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 11 Jan 2006 20:08:07 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

If the actual reference (ideally in an easy, free format
like kicking about on the web) comes to hand, I'd be pleased to know
of it.

Trust me, if I ever find the little bugger I will nail its ears to the
wall, having mislaid it some months ago :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

David Martin said:

Well, if it is bridges you want..
http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/sunset.html

So far north the water slopes!

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

James Annan said:

David Martin said:

Well, if it is bridges you want..
http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/sunset.html

So far north the water slopes!

That's not the Tay: I have it on good authority that the Tay is Silv'ry and
not any of those other colours. It also seems as if the girders on the
bridge are not buttressed, too, despite the fact that William Topaz
MacGonagall specified that it should be built that way. I believe it's
somewhere else.
--
Ambrose