Potholes

Adrian Boliston said:

My commuting route has a few annoyances like badly set drain covers, but
each imperfection in the road is subconciously memorised so that I avoid
them without thinking.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Should I ever be a cycling newbie in your area, I shall call upon your
services as a guide.

In news:[email hidden],
Al C-F <[email hidden]> tweaked the
Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

I'd rather insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory,
wouldn't you?

No. 3000 screws don't itch half as much as a bag of fibreglass.

They've changed it since Lt. Col. Larrington (retd.) forced a small Mr.
Larrington to crawl into all the nooks and crannies of his attic lugging
behind him rolls of the loathsome stuff. When TWFKAML and I did our loft a
few years ago, itches came there none.

And a good thing too.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of
thing, then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in
high heels.

Al C-F said:

When we bought into the idea of 'relative poverty', we ensured that
it would never go away.

Not strictly true. One of the common relative poverty lines is 50%
of median equivalised household income. It is logically entirely
possible to have a distribution where no one is below 50% of the
median. Politically possible is another question of course.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Den 2007-03-14 09:06:23 skrev Al C-F
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

I'd rather insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory,
wouldn't you?

No. 3000 screws don't itch half as much as a bag of fibreglass.

I understand they use air (thick walls) and foil, not sure if fibreglass
is even used.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2007-03-14 09:11:58 skrev Al C-F
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Chris Johns said:

Given the current state help (such as benifits and housing) seems to
encourage those who are unable to support children to have them, it
will make us all poorer (both finanically and as a society).
It's something that needs to be there for when you're stuck, but it
shouldn't be a way of life.

Well said.

We are diluting the strain by our economic policies.

Actually the article says the guy has a job. They just don't have a place
to stay.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Erik Sandblom said:

I understand they use air (thick walls) and foil, not sure if fibreglass
is even used.

It is. Google will quickly confirm this.

In any case, whatever the insulation used, retroactively insulating any of
ceilings / walls / floors can be an time consuming and unpleasant job (I'm
planning to do walls and floor in my house as we redecorate, and it's not a
job I look forward to). I'd rather be working in a nice clean car factory
personally.

Anthony

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2007-03-14 09:06:23 skrev Al C-F
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

I'd rather insulate a home than tighten 3000 screws in a car factory,
wouldn't you?

No. 3000 screws don't itch half as much as a bag of fibreglass.

I understand they use air (thick walls) and foil, not sure if fibreglass
is even used.

Erik Sandblom

few years ago i heard a radio 4 section which was about one of the
northen councils had paid for a heat loss survey, as part of the drive
to get people in older houses to insulate them.

but what the survey found was that modern houses where often worse,
mostly shoddy workmanship, ie all the wall insulation clumped in one
section etc.

as modern houses are built to a cost. something of a issue i would
guess.

roger

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2007-03-13 16:38:33 skrev Rob Morley <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What are you waiting for?

Quoted message said:

The perfect mousetrap?

It's staring you in the face :-)

and scratching the furniture

TL

in message <[email hidden]>, Al C-F

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

There is one family with children at the primary school in this village
who are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed.
Yes, in winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition
of it.

I'd like to be convinced that either of these cases is through necessity.

Define necessity.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ Disclaimer: This is a work displacement exercise. Please feel free ]
[ to reply either on or off group. Expect lengthy replies until the ]
[ deadline has passed. Thank-you for your cooperation. ]

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Actually that's in effect what you're already doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Services

Right. But, personally, I don't much fancy a future where nearly everyone
works in a call centre and presumably then goes home to spend all their
leisure time calling up blokes in call centres.

Quoted message said:

There are only two things we need to stop doing:
1. stop emitting greenhouse gasses

This has got nothing to do with global warming, except inasmuch as global
warming is another reason why indefinitely increasing consumption is not a
sensible approach. If there was no such thing as climate change [1] the
difficulty I outline would be just as much of a problem.

[1] For the avoidance of doubt; I am not myself in the denial camp and
take them about as seriously as creationists.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoting Al C-F <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

There is one family with children at the primary school in this village who
are living in a tent, and another who are living in a garden shed. Yes, in
winter. If that isn't poverty, I'd like to see your definition of it.

I'd like to be convinced that either of these cases is through necessity.

Who (apart from auks and suchlike) stays in a tent in winter just for fun?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoted message said:

Right. But, personally, I don't much fancy a future where nearly everyone
works in a call centre and presumably then goes home to spend all their
leisure time calling up blokes in call centres.

That's so nineties. Nearly all the call centre staff I speak to are
indians in india. Lower staff turnover means they normally know their job
too.

Den 2007-03-14 20:18:36 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Actually that's in effect what you're already doing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Services

Right. But, personally, I don't much fancy a future where nearly everyone
works in a call centre and presumably then goes home to spend all their
leisure time calling up blokes in call centres.

Quoted message said:

There are only two things we need to stop doing:
1. stop emitting greenhouse gasses

This has got nothing to do with global warming, except inasmuch as global
warming is another reason why indefinitely increasing consumption is not
a
sensible approach.

No, there's nothing wrong with indefinitely increasing consumption as long
as it's sustainable and doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. It really is that
simple.

We should consume less or zero of things that are unsustainable, but more
of windpower, insulation, cycling, low-energy trains, biofuels and
sustainable agriculture.

Oil appears to have permeated our economy and maybe even our minds, but in
the future we can and will do without oil.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

No, there's nothing wrong with indefinitely increasing consumption as long
as it's sustainable and doesn't emit greenhouse gasses.

Well, yes, there is. What's it going to be? Are you going to take eight
hour train journeys every day? Have a TV so big you can't see the top of
it? Eat eighteen meals a day? Remember, no matter how much production
efficiency improves, we're keeping unemployment low, so there's just going
to be _more stuff_ every year you have to use up somehow.

You've confused yourself by being so single-issue - I wasn't talking about
environmental issues at all.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is First Leicesterday, March.

in message <[email hidden]>, Erik Sandblom

(') said:

No, there's nothing wrong with indefinitely increasing consumption as
long as it's sustainable ...

Stop right there: that's a contradiction in terms.

This is a finite (and rather small) planet. Any increase in consumption is
by definition not sustainable; indeed our current level of consumption is
very badly not sustainable. We need to get total human consumption down -
fairly rapidly - to considerably less than its present levels (I would
guess 20% of its present level, but that's just a number plucked out of
the air), or else the planet is not going to be habitable - and, just to
be clear, I would believe that even if there were no global warming. We've
turned the oceans into a desert; the collapse in biodiversity on land is
almost equally dramatic; our forests are going up (literally) in smoke;
and we're rapidly poisoning our whole life support system.

We have to cut consumption, and there are two ways to do it: drastically
cut the population, or drastically cut the wealth of each individual.
Unfortunately, neither look politically possible, so (as they say) we're
all doomed.

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

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.

In news:[email hidden],
David Damerell <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Who (apart from auks and suchlike) stays in a tent in winter just for
fun?

Tents? Pffft! Church porches, bus shelters, motorway service station cafe
floors, garage forecourts, phone boxes, grit bins, yes, but a tent? Far too
niminy-piminy :-)

Though it's only Steve Abraham who's out all night at this time of year, and
I don't think he /does/ sleep...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Whatever it is, I'd like it in mango & passion fruit, please.

Simon Brooke wrote on 15/03/2007 08:26 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, neither look politically possible, so (as they say) we're
all doomed.

UR Private Frasier and ICMFP ;-)

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Den 2007-03-15 09:26:59 skrev Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Erik
Sandblom

(') said:

No, there's nothing wrong with indefinitely increasing consumption as
long as it's sustainable ...

Stop right there: that's a contradiction in terms.

This is a finite (and rather small) planet. Any increase in consumption
is
by definition not sustainable;

Why not?

An increase in consumption doesn't need to be increased material wealth.
Let's say I spent £400 jetting off for two weekend breaks last year. Well,
this year I spend £500 on credit-card cycle touring with all organic food.
So I've consumed more, spent more money, but reduced my ecological
footprint.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2007-03-15 06:42:23 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

No, there's nothing wrong with indefinitely increasing consumption as
long
as it's sustainable and doesn't emit greenhouse gasses.

Well, yes, there is. What's it going to be? Are you going to take eight
hour train journeys every day? Have a TV so big you can't see the top of
it? Eat eighteen meals a day? Remember, no matter how much production
efficiency improves, we're keeping unemployment low, so there's just
going
to be _more stuff_ every year you have to use up somehow.

150 years ago you would tell me that I could only sit in a horsedrawn
carriage for so long. But today I can go lots more places by train than I
could 150 years ago by horse. I can call my friends on my mobile to tell
them what I've seen. I can tour with my recumbent or bring my folder on
the train. I can do more. I will live longer, and my children won't die as
fast. They didn't even have bikes in 1857!

If you have grandchildren, you probably think they do weird stuff that you
didn't do, when you were their age. Even if you're not 150 years old.

It's probably not going to be a bigger TV or more food, it's going to be
something really cool and green that we might not even have thought of yet.

Erik Sandblom
--
Oil is for sissies

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Well, yes, there is. What's it going to be? Are you going to take eight
hour train journeys every day?

150 years ago you would tell me that I could only sit in a horsedrawn
carriage for so long. But today I can go lots more places by train than I
could 150 years ago by horse.

It takes less long, too, and it's enormously more efficient - to ride in
that horsedrawn carriage takes a lot of human labour looking after horses.

Quoted message said:

the train. I can do more. I will live longer, and my children won't die as
fast.

That doesn't help - that also increases the supply of labour - unless the
retirement age doesn't change, which is effectively violating my condition
b), low unemployment.

Quoted message said:

It's probably not going to be a bigger TV or more food, it's going to be
something really cool and green that we might not even have thought of yet.

I don't want to be presented with an endless series of allegedly cool
things I have to have in order to keep everyone grinding out 40 hour
weeks. I'd rather let most of the people be idle most of the time.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace