Things that make me go WTF?
Dave
content of my food (not that I necessarily do, mind you). And,
obviously, people who want to loose weight can benefit from this
information too.
And I've nothing -particularly- against diet companies labelling food
with a points system.
However, in the supermarket this afternoon, I noticed that Jrvtug
Jngpuref are selling a product that has a 'zero' rating, and so one can
consume as much as you like of it without it affecting your diet.
Now, I dunno much about this dihydrogen monoxide stuff, but it sure is a
comfort to know that one can buy a specific diet-orientated variety as
well as all the ordinary full-fat brands too, FFS.
Dave
--
millibrachiate tentacular coelenterates..
Dave
Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
> In article <jrzoyrl-CB3B25...@news.easynews.com>,
> Dave wrote:
> > I'm diabetic, and I know I have to take care about the nutritional
> > content of my food (not that I necessarily do, mind you). And,
> > obviously, people who want to loose weight can benefit from this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Look out below!
Well, err, _obviously_ I was referring to products containing olestra,
err, right. Ahem.
AndyC the WB
Dave> However, in the supermarket this afternoon, I noticed that
Dave> Jrvtug Jngpuref are selling a product that has a 'zero'
Dave> rating, and so one can consume as much as you like of it
Dave> without it affecting your diet.
Yes, it's the result of a rouding error. Their point system is nicely
defined in the patent application (the "example" formulae in the
patent are the actual ones they use). Essentially, in the .uk version
of the plan, anything with less than (from memory) about 50 kCal and
0.1g saturated fat will count as zero points. However, since it's
only approximately zero, eating enough of it will still make you fat.
SWMBO has been following said plan with varying levels of success, and
her no-point soup is a) an excellent veggie soup and b) a great way to
ensure an otherwise small diet-y lunch is sufficiently filling to mean
you're not ready for dinner before 2pm.
Andy (who knows more about the system than most people who've actually
signed up and gone to the meetings.)
--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
--- Richard Feynman
hymie!
Dave <jrz...@qfy.cvcrk.pbz>, who said:
>However, in the supermarket this afternoon, I noticed that Jrvtug
>Jngpuref are selling a product that has a 'zero' rating, and so one can
>consume as much as you like of it without it affecting your diet.
Given: 1 portion of food X has Y points.
Given: Points are expressed in whole numbers.
Therefore, 1/2 portion of X has (roughly) Y/2 points.
Therefore, 1/4 portion of X has (roughly) Y/4 points.
As the fractional portion of X becomes sufficiently small, the number of
points will approach 0.
At that point, you can eat infinitely many portions of that size and still
consume zero points.
And yet, my weight is not decreasing. :(
=====
Last time I checked, a serving of carrots was assigned a value of 1 point,
not for its fat/fiber/calorie content, but because people were eating
carrots to the point of hypercarotenemia.
hymie! http://www.smart.net/~hymowitz hy...@lactose.homelinux.net
===============================================================================
If you really do hold all the cards, I'm afraid they're playing backgammon.
--Demaris
================================================================================
Peter Corlett
[...]
> At that point, you can eat infinitely many portions of that size and still
> consume zero points.
See Little Britain's "Fat Fighters" and the "half the calories - so you can
eat twice as much" sketch.
> And yet, my weight is not decreasing. :(
I've decided that I enjoy good food and drink more than I want to lose
weight.
Maarten Wiltink
news:dJ-dndNaTJLPZffY...@comcast.com...
<Zeno diet>
> And yet, my weight is not decreasing. :(
Take up ballroom dancing. Three nights a week should do.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Dave
hymie_@_lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!) wrote:
> As the fractional portion of X becomes sufficiently small, the number of
> points will approach 0...
My boggling not being -that- (which is perfectly sensible) - but rather
that WeightWatchers are selling, which presumably means someone is
-buying-, diet water.
Dave
AndyC the WB <sp...@cunningham.me.uk> wrote:
> Yes, it's the result of a rouding error.
Well, no, not in this case. It's water. Fat Fighters, or whatever they
are called, are flogging bottles of diet water. That's what fscked my
what.
AndyC the WB
Dave> Well, no, not in this case. It's water. Fat Fighters, or
Dave> whatever they are called, are flogging bottles of diet
Dave> water. That's what fscked my what.
*boggle*
Fat Fighters own brand water?
Well, they do recommend that you drink 2 litres of water a day on the
diet, and given the level of luserdom in the general population, I can
see people buying the branded stuff becasue it must be better.
Fat Fighters are, of course, first and foremost a box-shifting
organisation. If they can stick their label on something and shift it
for a premium price, that's more important than actuallying helping
someone lose weight.
Andy
--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
If you can't just tell this person to go get fscked, then just give him
/wrong/ information. I'm sure that he'll eventually stop after you've
had him send enough stuff to /dev/null.
-- Mike Raeder
Counter proof: MSCEs are still drawing paychecks.
-- Paul Tomblin
Chris Suslowicz
>In article <jrzoyrl-CB3B25...@news.easynews.com>,
> Dave wrote:
>> I'm diabetic, and I know I have to take care about the nutritional
>> content of my food (not that I necessarily do, mind you). And,
>> obviously, people who want to loose weight can benefit from this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Look out below!
Avast behind!
Chris.
--
Phil Spector: "The difference between the Spice Girls
and a porno film is that the porno film has better music."
Stuart Lamble
> "hymie!" <hymie_@_lactose.homelinux.net> wrote in message
> news:dJ-dndNaTJLPZffY...@comcast.com...
>
><Zeno diet>
>
>> And yet, my weight is not decreasing. :(
>
> Take up ballroom dancing. Three nights a week should do.
True that. I swear, since I stopped competing, my tails have shrunk.
Interestingly, though, most of the shrinkage is around the shoulders -
not around the belly. Probably the weights work at the gym (hey, I've
always been weak in the upper body; it's about time I did something
about that. Shock horror - I actually managed seven full-body pushups
without stopping about a week ago.)
But seriously, I did put on a fair bit of weight after I stopped
dancing, and not in the good sense, either. Lots of fun, too, as long as
you don't do it to excess (I *knew* I should have stopped competing
after my first year ... sigh ...)
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
Soruk
uggc://jjj.mht.pbz/cenaxf/byrfgen/
--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell
Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Mail Me Anywhere - http://www.MailMeAnywhere.com/ - Mobile email
Paul Tomblin
>AndyC the WB posted thus:
>>--
>1 >Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
>2 >If you can't just tell this person to go get fscked, then just give him
>3 >/wrong/ information. I'm sure that he'll eventually stop after you've
>4 >had him send enough stuff to /dev/null.
>5 > -- Mike Raeder
>6 >Counter proof: MSCEs are still drawing paychecks.
>7 > -- Paul Tomblin
>
>Y'know, it's vanishingly probable that Paul wants to see his name on
>the seventh line of a .signature.
Ohhhh. My long dormant warlord-sense is all tingly.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
If Microsoft made your letter box, all some one would have to do is write
"Burn the house down" on a piece of paper and post it through the door,
and your house would go up in flames. - David Ruck
Stuart Lamble
> In a previous article, ab...@leftmind.net (Anthony de Boer - USEnet) said:
>>AndyC the WB posted thus:
>>>--
>>1 >Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
>>2 >If you can't just tell this person to go get fscked, then just give him
>>3 >/wrong/ information. I'm sure that he'll eventually stop after you've
>>4 >had him send enough stuff to /dev/null.
>>5 > -- Mike Raeder
>>6 >Counter proof: MSCEs are still drawing paychecks.
>>7 > -- Paul Tomblin
>>
>>Y'know, it's vanishingly probable that Paul wants to see his name on
>>the seventh line of a .signature.
>
> Ohhhh. My long dormant warlord-sense is all tingly.
What? No Gandalf sig?
Stuart Lamble
> Stuart Lamble posted thus:
>>What? No Gandalf sig?
>
> This time around, him posting it Will Have Been Your Fault.
I live to serve.
AndyC the WB
Anthony> Y'know, it's vanishingly probable that Paul wants to see
Anthony> his name on the seventh line of a .signature.
*self-lart*.
Some people are just too fussy. Me, I'd just be happy that I got
quoted by someone. Perhaps I'm becoming too easy to please or
something.
Andy
--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
to do it instead.
-- Bill Cole
Maarten Wiltink
news:slrnemnalc....@carousel.its.monash.edu.au...
>>> What? No Gandalf sig?
>>
>> This time around, him posting it Will Have Been Your Fault.
>
> I live to serve.
GET /~anthony/.sig-gandalf HTTP/1.0
Host: stuart.lamble.me.oz
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Paul Tomblin
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:51:41 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.2 (Fedora)
Last-Modified: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 01:06:05 GMT
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ASCII
Paul Tomblin, Head _ _ ____
Automated Test Tools Team | | | | | __| ___._`.*.'_._
_______________ ______ ____| |________ | |_| |__ + * .o u.* `
/ ________ _ \ | __ | / ________ _ \ | ______| . ' ' |\^/| `.
| | | | / / | | | | | | | | | | / / | | | | | | \V/
| |__| | / /__| |_| | | | | |_| | / /__| |_| | | | /_\
\ _____/ \__________| |_| \___|_| \__________| |_| === _/ \_ ===
//
\\____ Phone: (613) 723-6500x8018 Mail: Gandalf Data Limited
/ _ \ Fax: Don't know it yet 130 Colonnade Road South
| |_| | Email: ptom...@gandalf.ca Nepean, Ontario
\_____/ or ab...@freenet.carleton.ca K2E 7J5 CANADA
Disclaimer: Maybe after I've worked here for more than a few days,
Gandalf will let me speak for them. For now, it's just me talking.
And it was my idea to put htat Wizard in there, so Mr. Tolkein, please
don't sue Gandalf.
"And the trees are all kept equal now,
with axes, and saws" - RUSH
_
___ (_)
_/XXX\
_ /XXXXXX\_ __
X\__ __ /X XXXX XX\ _ /XX\__ ___
\__/ \_/__ \ \ _/X\__ /XX XXX\____/XXX\
\ ___ \/ \_ \ \ __ _/ \_/ _/ - __ - \__/
___/ \__/ \ \__ \\__ / \_// _ _ \ \ __ / \____//
/ __ \ / \ \_ _//_\___ __/ // \___/ \/ __/
__/_______\________\__\_/________\__/_/____/_____________/_______\____/_______
___
/L|0\
/ | \
/ \
/ | \
/ \
/ __ | __ \
/ __/ \__ \
/ /__ | __\ \
/___________________\
/ | \
/ _|_ \
/ ____/___\____ \
___________[o0o]___________
O O O
"Cherokee two niner zero, proceed on course, contact departure
one one niner point five five"
Connection closed by foreign host.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
"He who demands everything that his aircraft can give him is a pilot; he
that demands one iota more is a fool."
Paul Tomblin
>On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:54:50 +0000 (UTC), ptomblin...@xcski.com
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
>>>GET /~anthony/.sig-gandalf HTTP/1.0
>>>Host: stuart.lamble.me.oz
>>
>>HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>
>HTTP/1.1 response?
That's what Apache does:
$ telnet localhost 80
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to localhost.localdomain (127.0.0.1).
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
Host: xcski.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:01:12 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.2 (Fedora)
Last-Modified: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:06:05 GMT
ETag: "1c0e1-cb6-73315940"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 3254
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Connection closed by foreign host.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Mommy, what does "Formatting Drive C:" mean?
Richard Bos
You know, I'll bet there is a market for laxative-enhanced DHMO.
Richard
Richard Bos
> In <456caebe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Richard Bos <ral...@xs4all.nl>
> said
> >You know, I'll bet there is a market for laxative-enhanced DHMO.
>
> Round here they call it "Cryptosporidia" and deliver it as standard
> via the municipal water system.
Yeah, but they don't charge extra for it, do they? You could make good
money off it - there is an astounding number of stupid weight-lusers out
there.
Richard
Peter Corlett
[...]
> Round here they call it "Cryptosporidia" and deliver it as standard via
> the municipal water system.
Ah, good old Thames water.
> Me? I've got my own well...
That's not so practical on the second floor...
Garrett Wollman
Peter Corlett <ab...@cabal.org.uk> wrote:
>Tanuki <mailer...@canismajor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[...]
>> Round here they call it "Cryptosporidia" and deliver it as standard via
>> the municipal water system.
>
>Ah, good old Thames water.
Why is it that in Britain, far from making things better,
privatization always seems[1] to have made businesses even more
inefficient, incompetent, and customer-hostile than the faceless
government bureaucracies they replaced?
-GAWollman
[1] From my transpondian perspective, where of course we hear only
about the appalling cock-ups and not so much about what, if anything,
may have gone right.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Alan J Rosenthal
>Why is it that in Britain, far from making things better,
>privatization always seems[1] to have made businesses even more
>inefficient, incompetent, and customer-hostile than the faceless
>government bureaucracies they replaced?
Why would it be otherwise?
What is your understanding of the process of privitization?
Mine is: a transfer of public interest to (profit-making) private hands.
Of _course_ it makes things worse. I don't see any logical argument that
it would be otherwise. After all, if there weren't sufficient opportunity
to do the job more poorly, those private companies wouldn't be interested.
Their "profit" doesn't come from nowhere, you know.
Not everything is a zero-sum game, but privitization issues usually are.
They win, everyone else loses.
Alan J Rosenthal
[Jrvtug Jngpuref]
...
>Andy (who knows more about the system than most people who've actually
>signed up and gone to the meetings.)
Of course you do. You're a sysadmin; you understand systems.
That much makes sense.
Why almost everyone else _doesn't_ understand systems continues to baffle me.
Peter Corlett
[...]
> [1] From my transpondian perspective, where of course we hear only about
> the appalling cock-ups and not so much about what, if anything, may have
> gone right.
Well, it mainly involves handing control over a natural monopoly to
organisations whose only purpose is to make money. What could possibly go
wrong?
Mind you, with the current government, renationalisation probably wouldn't
be a win either.
AndyC the WB
Alan> Of course you do. You're a sysadmin;
Though not, technically speaking for much longer. While I will still
have to do sysadmin type stuff, I will be officially a Security person
(that's Information Security, not standing guard at the front desk)
from Jan 1st. More Bastardly opportunities, more Shiny! toys, and
less actually routine system admin stuff to do.
Whether this will actually be recovery remains to be seen, especially
since I still have to use Purpxcbvag.
Andy
--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
Paul Tomblin
>wol...@csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>Why is it that in Britain, far from making things better,
>>privatization always seems[1] to have made businesses even more
>>inefficient, incompetent, and customer-hostile than the faceless
>>government bureaucracies they replaced?
>
>Why would it be otherwise?
Because you, as a Canadian, think of governments are organizations formed
to help people. USians think of governments as the enemy, to be subverted
and conquered.
Really - the standard USian canards is that anything can be made better if
you take it out of the hands of a bloated government bureaucracy and put
into the hands of a bloated private bureaucracy that wants to squeeze the
more money out of the customers. That in spite of evidence that, for
instance, the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy puts a higher percentage of
its money in to actual medical care than any private health organization
in the US. The only organization that does a better job is the Veterans
Administration (VA), at least partly because they didn't have their hands
tied by Congress when it comes to using their bulk purchasing power to
demand lower prices from drug companies.
I work with a guy who doesn't participate in the Kodak drug plan, but
instead buys his drugs through the VA because the VA-negotiated,
non-subsidized price of drugs is lower than the co-pay on the Kodak plan.
And going back to the British case, I was there when North West Water used
the money they got when Thatcher privatized them and used it to pay
Andersen Consulting (and through them, GeoVision Systems Inc) to produce
an all-singing, all-dancing IT and SCADA infastructure. Of course, being
Andersen, all they actually produced was billable hours, but it was good
while it lasted.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can't
be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough
outcome for me. -- Steve VanDevender
Kenneth Brody
>
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave <jrz...@qfy.cvcrk.pbz> writes:
>
> Dave> However, in the supermarket this afternoon, I noticed that
> Dave> Jrvtug Jngpuref are selling a product that has a 'zero'
> Dave> rating, and so one can consume as much as you like of it
> Dave> without it affecting your diet.
>
> Yes, it's the result of a rouding error. Their point system is nicely
> defined in the patent application (the "example" formulae in the
> patent are the actual ones they use). Essentially, in the .uk version
> of the plan, anything with less than (from memory) about 50 kCal and
> 0.1g saturated fat will count as zero points. However, since it's
> only approximately zero, eating enough of it will still make you fat.
[...]
You can do the same thing with non-zero items. You can have an item
that, for example, will calculate at 2 points, but if you double
everything the calculations come out as 5. So, if you eat one of
them twice, it's 4 points, but if you eat two of them, it's 5.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:ThisIsA...@gmail.com>
Kenneth Brody
>
> On 29 Nov 2006 04:06:56 GMT, Alan J Rosenthal wrote:
> > Of course you do. You're a sysadmin; you understand systems.
> > That much makes sense.
> > Why almost everyone else _doesn't_ understand systems continues to baffle me.
>
> and me, don't understand lots of things.
>
> Why people continue to meddle in systems they don't understand, *that*
> baffles me. Relax and watch the blinkenlights, indeed.
Like the dead KC box that someone brought in recently. They had
some sort of malware hit their system, so they decided to fix[1] it
themselves. Poke around with ertrqvg and make it look like another
system they had laying around. Delete this. Change that. You
know the drill. They took a simple malware-cleanup and turned it
into a onpxhc/jvcr/ervafgnyy-BF/pbcl-qngn project. Fortunately,
we get to charge them the going "stupid tax" rate.
[1] In a "we fixed the dog" sort of way.
Kenneth Brody
>
> In article <8q7ixhb...@cunningham.me.uk>,> Well, no, not in this case. It's water. Fat Fighters, or whatever they
> are called, are flogging bottles of diet water. That's what fscked my
> what.
Like the "cholesterol free" margerines they used to push?
Lieven Marchand
> At that point, you can eat infinitely many portions of that size and still
> consume zero points.
There's a lawyer for Mssrs. Banach & Tarski here suing for patent infringement.
--
Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius!
Mike Andrews
> AndyC the WB wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave <jrz...@qfy.cvcrk.pbz> writes:
>>
>> Dave> However, in the supermarket this afternoon, I noticed that
>> Dave> Jrvtug Jngpuref are selling a product that has a 'zero'
>> Dave> rating, and so one can consume as much as you like of it
>> Dave> without it affecting your diet.
>>
>> Yes, it's the result of a rouding error. Their point system is nicely
>> defined in the patent application (the "example" formulae in the
>> patent are the actual ones they use). Essentially, in the .uk version
>> of the plan, anything with less than (from memory) about 50 kCal and
>> 0.1g saturated fat will count as zero points. However, since it's
>> only approximately zero, eating enough of it will still make you fat.
> [...]
> You can do the same thing with non-zero items. You can have an item
> that, for example, will calculate at 2 points, but if you double
> everything the calculations come out as 5. So, if you eat one of
> them twice, it's 4 points, but if you eat two of them, it's 5.
A reason to _not_ eat one of them twice is that it never tastes quite
as good the second time you eat it.
It doesn't taste all that great coming up, either.
--
"I don't have any solution but I certainly admire the problem."
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
AndyC the WB
Kenneth> You can do the same thing with non-zero items. You can
Kenneth> have an item that, for example, will calculate at 2
Kenneth> points, but if you double everything the calculations
Kenneth> come out as 5. So, if you eat one of them twice, it's 4
Kenneth> points, but if you eat two of them, it's 5.
It sometimes rounds down too.
IIRC, a single vodka is 1.5 pts, but a double is only 2.5. There are
a significant number of members for whom this is justification enough
to keep drinking doubles.
Andy
--
Andy Cunningham -- www.cunningham.me.uk
"Never go off on tangents, which are lines that intersect a curve at
only one point and were discovered by Euclid, who lived in the 6th
century, which was an era dominated by the Goths, who lived in what we
now know as Poland." - Unknown from Nov. 1998 issue of Infosystems
Executive.
Paul Tomblin
>In article <ekkhej$fpf$1...@allhats.xcski.com>,
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> And going back to the British case, I was there when North West Water used
>
>You were in Warrington?
Yes, for 6 months. I lived in Knutsford in a hotel for the first month,
then moved into a shared house in Altrincham. Worked in New Town House in
Warrington.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this."
- Military and Corporate Logic
Jasper Janssen
Wollman) wrote:
>Why is it that in Britain, far from making things better,
s/Britain/everywhere/
>privatization always seems[1] to have made businesses even more
>inefficient, incompetent, and customer-hostile than the faceless
>government bureaucracies they replaced?
Because privatisation isn't actually a panacea and some things (like
roads, and the (last-mile) networks of electricity, water, gas, etc.) are
just natural monopolies?
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
>My boggling not being -that- (which is perfectly sensible) - but rather
>that WeightWatchers are selling, which presumably means someone is
>-buying-, diet water.
Well, given that the alternative for bottled diet water is usually full of
icky minerals..
Jasper
Garrett Wollman
Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>Because privatisation isn't actually a panacea and some things (like
>roads, and the (last-mile) networks of electricity, water, gas, etc.) are
>just natural monopolies?
That doesn't explain why private electric, water, gas, etc., utilities
are in many places not only financially successful, but also
competent, reasonably efficient, and easier to deal with than the
average retailer. The difference, so far as I can tell, is in the
regulatory regime; of the ones I have to deal with, those that are
effectively deregulated (cableco, telco, condo association)[1] are far
worse than those that can be (and regularly are) hauled before the PUC
to explain customer complaints. Perhaps the UK doesn't properly
regulate its water utilities?
-GAWollman
[1] Cableco, telco, and other-cableco are the three facilities-based
communications providers in this area; theoretically, they all compete
for voice, video, and data. My condo association provides (excessive)
heat, about which I've previously ranted.
Dave
Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
No, no, you get the icky minerals when people (well, the Coca-Cola
Company) start bottling and flogging tap-water.
They won an ig-Nobel for turning perfectly good tap water supplied by
the local water board, adding carcinogens and selling it on for a 3000%
markup.
Dave
--
millibrachiate tentacular coelenterates..
Joe Bednorz
<<jrzoyrl-E1193C...@news.easynews.com>>:
Just add Mentos for a nice bottle rocket:
<uggc://jjj.lbhghor.pbz/jngpu?i=NxxBHCLAf7V&zbqr=eryngrq&frnepu=>
--
Links to Gigabytes of free books on line, emphasis on SF:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
All the Best,
Joe Bednorz
Jasper Janssen
>No, no, you get the icky minerals when people (well, the Coca-Cola
>Company) start bottling and flogging tap-water.
>
>They won an ig-Nobel for turning perfectly good tap water supplied by
>the local water board, adding carcinogens and selling it on for a 3000%
>markup.
But.. that's what they've been doing for more than a century.
Jasper
Jim Richardson
if they were natural monopolies, they wouldn't need laws to protect them
from competition.
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff
on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it.
-- Linus Torvalds
Chris Suslowicz
Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
Perrier were taking the carcinogens _out_ (until they forgot to
replace the charcoal filter that removed the benzene). Dasani
(aka "Peckham Spring") were putting them *in* (quite apart
from the practice of bottling Thames Water (filtered through
millions of kidneys) and selling it as something "natural").
Chris.
Chris.
--
It's my mailbox and I have the right not to have dildos inserted into it.
-- "Perplexed of Clapham" in msgid: <cb7138$4pp$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>> Because privatisation isn't actually a panacea and some things (like
>> roads, and the (last-mile) networks of electricity, water, gas, etc.) are
>> just natural monopolies?
>>
>
>if they were natural monopolies, they wouldn't need laws to protect them
>from competition.
Have you seen many rival roads/water/gas networks etc springing up, now
they're allowed to? The last-mile stretches, that is, not the profitable
long haul? Let alone ones that service areas beyond dense inner cities,
where the cost/consumer goes up a lot?
The laws mainly (used to) protect them from competition on those longhaul
stretches, in the first place, and in the second place the government
acted to *consolidate* all those small separate companies into one big one
controlled by themselves.
Jasper
Alan J Rosenthal
> Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> Because privatisation isn't actually a panacea and some things (like
>> roads, and the (last-mile) networks of electricity, water, gas, etc.) are
>> just natural monopolies?
>
>if they were natural monopolies, they wouldn't need laws to protect them
>from competition.
The bit which involves competition once privatized is usually mostly
bureaucratic. When natural gas supply to households was privatized here,
if you switch "suppliers" no plumbing is involved. The gas is the same.
The billing is all that changes.
In some privatization cases the actual operator of the services changes,
but generally just to a single entity (because redoing all the natural
gas plumbing, for example, would be ridiculous). And this new operator
has less incentive to provide good service than the "crown corporation"
previously operating the service, because they're still a monopoly and
they're no longer democratically accountable.
They also generally have no other mandate than to provide the service, whereas
the crown corporation would have had various kinds of public responsibility
(e.g. limiting rate increases or making them more gradual, or not shutting
people off when they can't pay because they've lost their job, or etc), and
also would be doing some hopefully-socially-beneficial research about how to
operate the service better, be less environmentally destructive, etc.
When prices go down after a privatization escapade, it's usually because
the new operator is doing no R&D, is paying their employees less, and is
otherwise being short-sighted about the system. And even in those cases
the prices often still go up.
Alan J Rosenthal
>Abxvn firewalls
Wow. Can you download funky ring-tones for them?
-- aj "I suggest a Dalek saying 'intruder alert'" r
Dave
Gallian <gal...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> And after spending all your time and energy to the point of breakdown
> on getting your systems running right, you get pointy haired
> manglement starting to ask questions why you're behind on the actual
> security-related work.
I dunno? Offer to start off by auditing them and seeing what you can
find on their PC's? Get 'specialist' on their arse?
Dave
Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
Yeah, but they weren't selling it as extra-pure water, where they?
Dave
Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Just add Mentos for a nice bottle rocket:
>
> <uggc://jjj.lbhghor.pbz/jngpu?i=NxxBHCLAf7V&zbqr=eryngrq&frnepu=>
Dunno about Mentos - a bottle of incompletely defrosted QvrgPbxr that
had previously been put in a freezer by some other muppet did that to me
in a lift when I was at university. Well, similar, anyway - I kept hold
of the bottle, while the contents hit the ceiling and bounced. Yuck.
Hypothermia _and_ sticky.
Jim Richardson
Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:16:45 -0800, Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com>
> wrote:
>>On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:03:22 GMT,
>> Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>>> Because privatisation isn't actually a panacea and some things (like
>>> roads, and the (last-mile) networks of electricity, water, gas, etc.) are
>>> just natural monopolies?
>>>
>>
>>if they were natural monopolies, they wouldn't need laws to protect them
>>from competition.
>
> Have you seen many rival roads/water/gas networks etc springing up, now
> they're allowed to? The last-mile stretches, that is, not the profitable
> long haul? Let alone ones that service areas beyond dense inner cities,
> where the cost/consumer goes up a lot?
>
They're starting to, yes. It doesn't happen overnight. Further,
competing with a state subsidized entity can be difficult, since your
taxes (and those of your customers) is income for your competitors.
> The laws mainly (used to) protect them from competition on those longhaul
> stretches, in the first place, and in the second place the government
Yes, with the same argument we now see on the last mile "It's to
expensive" "no one could compete" etc, etc.
> acted to *consolidate* all those small separate companies into one big one
> controlled by themselves.
>
yes, by forced buyouts, and simply outlawing their competitors. giggle
for "The American Letter Co" and "Lysander Spooner" for a good story on
this.
Good sigmonster...
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in"
Richard Gadsden
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:07:17 GMT,
> Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>> Have you seen many rival roads/water/gas networks etc springing up, now
>> they're allowed to? The last-mile stretches, that is, not the profitable
>> long haul? Let alone ones that service areas beyond dense inner cities,
>> where the cost/consumer goes up a lot?
>>
>
> They're starting to, yes. It doesn't happen overnight. Further,
> competing with a state subsidized entity can be difficult, since your
> taxes (and those of your customers) is income for your competitors.
Really?
Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
Or building a second road to someone's front door? Or a second water pipe?
Or a universal mail service?
Wow, where?
--
Richard Gadsden ric...@gadsden.name
"I disagree with what you say but I will defend to
the death your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Mike Andrews
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:07:17 GMT,
>> Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>> Have you seen many rival roads/water/gas networks etc springing up, now
>>> they're allowed to? The last-mile stretches, that is, not the profitable
>>> long haul? Let alone ones that service areas beyond dense inner cities,
>>> where the cost/consumer goes up a lot?
>>>
>>
>> They're starting to, yes. It doesn't happen overnight. Further,
>> competing with a state subsidized entity can be difficult, since your
>> taxes (and those of your customers) is income for your competitors.
> Really?
> Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
> Or building a second road to someone's front door? Or a second water pipe?
> Or a universal mail service?
> Wow, where?
There is (or was, at any rate) a privately-owned-and-operated tollway
in California, IIRC. It was pretty big news here at WeBuildHighways
for a while.
<http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/06mar/06.htm> may prove of interest. The
first paragraph is this:
In little more than 12 months, beginning in late 2004, the following
events occurred: A Spanish toll road company proposed to invest $7.2
billion to build the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a
major highway, rail, and utility corridor running north-south from
Oklahoma to Mexico. A global consortium agreed to pay $1.8 billion
to lease, toll, operate, and maintain the Chicago Skyway for 99
years. And an Australian toll road operator bought out a struggling
public-private toll road in Virginia.
That certainly gives me to think that there are other road operators than
government.
There are multiple power utilities in this area of Oklahoma: some houses
in my block get their power from OG&E, and some from Oklahoma Electric
Co-Op. There're also Caddo Electric Co-Op and Canadian Valley Electric
Co-Op in nearby areas. Their service areas overlap to at least some extent,
and they share poles. In some places, there'll be two or three sets of
distribution lines on a pole, above the phone-and-cableTV stuff, with each
having its own pole pigs and service drops to houses. It must make things
... interesting for the linemen. Up in northeast OK.us, there's also the
Public disService Company and the Grand Rapids Development Authority, both
of which are powercos.
Certainly we have multiple telcos. We used to have one of our home phones
through SBC, and another through Cox. Now both are SBC.
Lots of folks routinely circumvent, or circumvented, the private mail
statute[1], using FedEX, UPS, DHL, & other private messenger companies to
deliver letter mail.
"Last-mile" roads to, say, houses, or even housing subdivisions, are *much*
more difficult to di privately, but I suppose they could be done, too.
[1] Not sure if it's even still in effect
--
...the read microsoft client. Also doubles as a mail-reader and a
reminder service (remind me). Now with the read fast option!
-- Ingvar
Mike Andrews
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:20:58 +0000 (UTC), Mike Andrews wrote:
>> Lots of folks routinely circumvent, or circumvented, the private mail
>> statute[1], using FedEX, UPS, DHL, & other private messenger companies to
>> deliver letter mail.
>>
>> "Last-mile" roads to, say, houses, or even housing subdivisions, are *much*
>> more difficult to di privately, but I suppose they could be done, too.
>>
>> [1] Not sure if it's even still in effect
> Which statutes? I remember a US Mail one that specifies that nothing
> is to be put into US Mail boxes in an attempt to circumvent paying for
> postage, but nothing about requiring US Mail to be used for stuff not
> put into mailboxes. Hence all the separate boxes on the same posts for
> local newspapers and the like.
It's the "Private Express Statutes", which cover carriage and delivery
of letter mail.
Wikipedia, while often a weak reed, covers them fairly well in the article
at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes>.
The PES consists of 18 U.S.C. ' 1693 through sec. 1999 and 39 U.S.C. '
601 through sec. 606, implemented under 39 Code of Federal Regulations
Parts 310 and 320. These forbid all carriage and delivery of letter
mail by private organizations, except as described in the next
section. The PES only cover "letters" and not other mailable items
such as parcels or periodicals. Title 18 Section 1696 appears to be
a major part, though not the only part, of the PES that can be used
against folks who try to compete with the USPS in carrying letters.
: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 83 > ' 1696 Prev | Next
:
: ' 1696. Private express for letters and packets
:
: (a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of
: letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the
: conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over
: any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any
: city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place, between which
: the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or
: imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
: This section shall not prohibit any person from receiving and
: delivering to the nearest post office, postal car, or other authorized
: depository for mail matter any mail matter properly stamped.
: (b) Whoever transmits by private express or other unlawful means, or
: delivers to any agent thereof, or deposits at any appointed place, for
: the purpose of being so transmitted any letter or packet, shall be
: fined under this title.
:
: (c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission
: of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or
: by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only.
: Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or
: transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601
: of title 39, shall be observed as to each piece.
Another biggie is this:
: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 83 > ' 1697 Prev | Next
:
: ' 1697. Transportation of persons acting as private express
:
: Whoever, having charge or control of any conveyance operating by
: land, air, or water, knowingly conveys or knowingly permits the
: conveyance of any person acting or employed as a private express for
: the conveyance of letters or packets, and actually in possession of
: the same for the purpose of conveying them contrary to law, shall be
: fined under this title.
Overall, it appears to have been the intent of Congress to sew letter
mail up neatly and hand it to the USPS, and from what I've seen, they
did it fairly neatly.
--
I was thinking of the legendary British Weather, with the four seasons
of winter, mud, rain, and damp.
-- Rev. Peter da Silva
James Wilkinson
> If you start from the idea that someone living in a remote place
> shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of his choice, it all makes
> sense...
Or if you start from the idea that the Highlands of Scotland are full of
clans of hairy, easily irritated Scotsmen with a penchant for goats, and
it might be a good idea for all parties if they were encouraged to stay
there...
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | In poker you have to show your hand eventually if called.
aprilcottage.co.uk | So far SCO have with great reluctance shown only one
| card, which turned out to be "Mr Bun, The Baker".
| -- Electric Dragon on groklaw.net
Garrett Wollman
Mike Andrews <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote:
>It's the "Private Express Statutes", which cover carriage and delivery
>of letter mail.
The way usps.com currently interprets the law, it's OK for a private
company to deliver letter mail, provided they (or their customers) pay
at-least-first-class[1] postage.[2]
-GAWollman
[1] Now "First Class" is a brand of mail delivery service, as opposed
to its traditional interpretation as the first of a series of numbered
classes. What used to be third-class mail (junk mail) is now
"standard mail".
[2] Or at least that's my recollection from having read the relevant
section of the DMM while trying to find the technical requirements for
postcards.
Zebee Johnstone
Roger Burton West <ro...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>
> If you start from the idea that someone living in a remote place
> shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of his choice, it all makes
> sense...
So you don't really like eating eh?
NOt everyone who lives in the back of beyond is raising food, but a
hell of a lot of them are.
Zebee
Garrett Wollman
Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:12:04 +0000 (UTC)
>Roger Burton West <ro...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>>
>> If you start from the idea that someone living in a remote place
>> shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of his choice, it all makes
>> sense...
>
>So you don't really like eating eh?
The argument used by libertarian economists is that it is right and
proper that the cost of food should reflect the cost of production.
If there is excess production, such that the price realized by the
producer is less than the cost, then the appropriate reaction is for
the high-cost producers to close, eventually bringing the supply and
demand back into equilibrium.
Those on the opposite side will point out that society has interests
in a stable, safe food supply that it does not have in the case of
widgets.
-GAWollman
Jasper Janssen
>Jim Richardson wrote:
>> They're starting to, yes. It doesn't happen overnight. Further,
>> competing with a state subsidized entity can be difficult, since your
>> taxes (and those of your customers) is income for your competitors.
>
>Really?
>
>Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
>
>Or building a second road to someone's front door? Or a second water pipe?
>
>Or a universal mail service?
That last bit is something they're getting really close to -- but then, it
doesn't require that much infrastructure, apart from the bits that are
being subsidised by the government that is.
Around here, mail of under 50 grams is still held as a monopoly by the
former state owned carrier, but anything over that barrier is thrown open.
The bigger mail order companies and people like that have started to add
48 gram catalogues to their 2 gram bills, and sending them out with
competing carriers. Of course, that's just universal delivery, not
universal pickup.
Jasper
Garrett Wollman
Richard Gadsden <ric...@gadsden.name> wrote:
>Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
I have a choice of two (premises-based) cable companies, both of which
also offer telephone service, and one (premises-based) telephone
company, which is currently building out the infrastructure to offer
cable TV service. The electric company would like to offer me
broadband over its lines (I would prefer that it not even try -- the
QRM is bad enough here as it is), and the four competing cellular
phone companies would all like me to give them money for "high-speed"
data service.
Water and sewerage, on the other hand, come from the town (and
ultimately from the state) and always have; it's hard to imagine how
it could be otherwise.[1] (Some other towns have contracted out the
*operation* of their water systems to private companies. That doesn't
count as "private" in my book, since the ownership remains public.)
-GAWollman
[1] When the state owns the largest drinking-water reservoir in the
world, which required the expropriation and disincorporation of four
entire towns, it's a bit hard for a private supplier to compete.
People can still build their own wells in most places.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
And those who don't, work to support those who do.
Or in my case, I get paid by the government, which means I can spend
money, which employs the shopkeepers, which pays the farmers.
With these fires having being declared under section 44, we were able
to bring in external fire teams (I remember a few years back when fire
teams drove from all the eastern and middle states to converge upon a
place where I was living -- except I can't remember which place that
was (my feeling is Mannum, SA, but there's no bush to burn out
there)). Under section 44, they are funded federally instead of the
usual (a combination of state, local, and scrounging via raffles?)
means. The local food distributer had a wonderful week, having to
bring in $500 worth of musili bars, a car load of coke, etc, for the
firies. And it's all coming in from the federal government. It was
theorised that he started the fires of 1997.
--
TimC
These days I'd use MOSFETs. 1kV 6A (use at 200VDC) ones are about $10 US.
Should do a hell of a job on twisted pair Ethernet equipment. - Brian in ASR
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:12:04 +0000 (UTC)
>>Roger Burton West <ro...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>>> If you start from the idea that someone living in a remote place
>>> shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of his choice, it all makes
>>> sense...
>>
>>So you don't really like eating eh?
>
> The argument used by libertarian economists is that it is right and
> proper that the cost of food should reflect the cost of production.
> If there is excess production, such that the price realized by the
> producer is less than the cost, then the appropriate reaction is for
> the high-cost producers to close, eventually bringing the supply and
> demand back into equilibrium.
>
> Those on the opposite side will point out that society has interests
> in a stable, safe food supply that it does not have in the case of
> widgets.
And those in the USoA just want loads of cheap corn syrup?
GET SOME REAL SUGAR! Ahem.
Mmmmm, golden syrup.
--
TimC
> Time is nature's way of making sure that everything doesn't happen at once.
And space is so that it doesn't all happen to you.
-- Matthew L. Martin and John D Salt in ARK
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Mike Andrews wrote:
>> There is (or was, at any rate) a privately-owned-and-operated tollway
>> in California, IIRC. It was pretty big news here at WeBuildHighways
>> for a while.
>
> We call them "broken election promises".
Core or non core?
--
TimC
I'm all for computer dating, but I wouldn't want one to marry my sister. --unk
Stuart Lamble
> And those in the USoA just want loads of cheap corn syrup?
>
> GET SOME REAL SUGAR! Ahem.
>
> Mmmmm, golden syrup.
And/or treacle. Or honey.
Damn, now I feel the need to go back some gingerbread ...
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
Garrett Wollman
Tanuki <mailer...@canismajor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <el28a6$2392$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman
><wol...@csail.mit.edu> said
>>Water and sewerage, on the other hand, come from the town (and
>>ultimately from the state) and always have; it's hard to imagine how
>>it could be otherwise.
>
You have to actually have clean and sufficient ground- or
surface-water in order to make that work, at least as far as supply
goes. Disposal is a bit easier, provided you have enough land that
you're not contaminating the supply (vide supra).
My state has a population density of 313 km^{-2} -- significantly
greater than that of the UKoGB&NI -- and the property values to match.
-GAWollman
Garrett Wollman
Stuart Lamble <7d6-...@carousel.its.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>On 2006-12-05, TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>> And those in the USoA just want loads of cheap corn syrup?
>>
>> GET SOME REAL SUGAR! Ahem.
>
Honey we have, in decent quantity. Maple syrup/sugar -- the *real*
stuff -- we also have. It's only cane/beet sugar that we are stuck
paying inflated non-market prices for. (According to some
ten-year-old statistics I found, the U.S. produces about 9 billion
tons of corn per year. Michael Pollan's latest book explains why.)
Jim Richardson
>
>> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:07:17 GMT,
>> Jasper Janssen <jas...@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>>> Have you seen many rival roads/water/gas networks etc springing up, now
>>> they're allowed to? The last-mile stretches, that is, not the profitable
>>> long haul? Let alone ones that service areas beyond dense inner cities,
>>> where the cost/consumer goes up a lot?
>>>
>>
>> They're starting to, yes. It doesn't happen overnight. Further,
>> competing with a state subsidized entity can be difficult, since your
>> taxes (and those of your customers) is income for your competitors.
>
> Really?
>
> Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
>
yeah, it's called a cable company, or perhaps you'd prefer a leased line
from a non-telco? heck, we have wimax starting up around here. Wires
aren't even required.
> Or building a second road to someone's front door? Or a second water pipe?
>
> Or a universal mail service?
gogle for The American Letter company. Congress outlawed it after it
embarrased the US postal service.
>
> Wow, where?
>
All you have to do, is look. Monopolies that have to be propped up by
laws, and restrictions on competitors, or subsidies, are not, by
definition, natural monopolies.
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
stevo
> In article <el1oua$67l$3...@puck.litech.org>,
> Mike Andrews wrote:
>> in California, IIRC. It was pretty big news here at WeBuildHighways
>> for a while.
>
> We call them "broken election promises".
Really? we call them "another stupid idea those damn fool Eastern
Staters had that we are not going to implement here"
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
"an obstinate heretic in the despite of beauty"
Eric Schwartz
> So you don't really like eating eh?
>
> NOt everyone who lives in the back of beyond is raising food, but a
> hell of a lot of them are.
That's a surprisingly convincing argument for not pricing the cost of
living in a remote area into the goods you sell to support your living
in said remote area.
-=Eric
Zebee Johnstone
IT was the idea that it was a choice as in it was frivolous.
It's also a practical thing - if you make it difficult to be a farmer,
people stop. Sure, if food gets very very expensive it becomes more
viable to farm, but I dunno it's a sensible way to run a country.
BUt then I can't comprehend allowing your infrstructure to be owned by
foreigners or being dependent for food on imports.
Probably because I'm old enough to have known too many people who
lived through a war and threat of invasion. So my thoughts aren't
really about pure rational economics.
Zebee
Dave Hughes
> Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
Got that.There's no way Gryfgen will pull out a cable at their expense,
but the other telco have their own running in. I was impressed by the guys
fixing the line fault at midnight last night, though less impressed by the
phone call at 2am to say it was fixed.
This is on a standard residential line as well, so it wasn't a "we supply
multiple digit percentages of our revenue, and will happily talk to your
competition" situation.
--
Dave Hughes | da...@hired-goons.net
It's the twenty-first century, for Pete's sake. If you can't have a
flying car, you should at least be able to buy a sodding ray gun.
- Dan Rutter
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>> Like running a second set of wires into people's houses?
>
> Got that.There's no way Gryfgen will pull out a cable at their expense,
> but the other telco have their own running in. I was impressed by the guys
> fixing the line fault at midnight last night, though less impressed by the
> phone call at 2am to say it was fixed.
I had been having dodgy power for a couple of weeks, but very
intermittantly. Finally one night, it decided to stay around for long
periods of time, so at 0000, I rang the power company. They came
around at 0300, and knocked on my door to talk me through it.
Fortunately, I was awake and wasting time on the computer at the time
(big honking UPS, completely over the top for a single computer home
network).
They couldn't find the fault (it was working when they eventually
turned up), despite me telling them which direction I heard a bang
from a few hours ago.
A few weeks later, it finally occurred good and proper for an hour or
so, late in the day. Much more people affected, and someone else must
have called them because there were soon men working on one of the
larger pole mounted transformers around, in the direction I had heard
the bang from. Well, whatya know? Didn't occur again.
My own fuse box kept on staying as dodgy as it ever was until I moved
out, but at least the sparks from it no longer coincided with the
streetlight out the front flickering off.
--
TimC
My cats are forbidden from walking on my computer keyboard on the desk
when I'm asdfjjhhkl;ljfd.;oier' puyykmm4hbdm9lo9j USING IT. --unknown
Peter Corlett
> [...] Thames Water (filtered through millions of kidneys)
It's drinkable enough on its own - possibly less foul than I remember from
2000 - but you'll be wanting bottled water for adding to scotch.
Eric Schwartz
> IT was the idea that it was a choice as in it was frivolous.
I didn't get any implication of frivolity from the article you replied
to.
> It's also a practical thing - if you make it difficult to be a farmer,
> people stop. Sure, if food gets very very expensive it becomes more
> viable to farm, but I dunno it's a sensible way to run a country.
Food doesn't have to get very very expensive (at least for end-users);
a very small fraction of the cost you pay to buy groceries goes to
farmers. You could easily double it, and hardly notice the price of
your groceries going up.
> BUt then I can't comprehend allowing your infrstructure to be owned by
> foreigners or being dependent for food on imports.
I'm not sure what that has to do with living in a rural area and
expecting to be subsidized for that choice. Mind you, if I could
afford to live in the sticks, I'd be all over it, but right now, I've
other priorities. That doesn't mean I expect to be subsidized for the
privilege if and when I do move.
-=Eric
Zebee Johnstone
Eric Schwartz <emsc...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what that has to do with living in a rural area and
> expecting to be subsidized for that choice. Mind you, if I could
> afford to live in the sticks, I'd be all over it, but right now, I've
> other priorities. That doesn't mean I expect to be subsidized for the
> privilege if and when I do move.
>
It's back to this "choice" thing. To me this idea that it's a choice
as in "hey, lets do it, will be fun" is what's wonky.
Because I don't think it's that easy. Nor is a country, not mine
anyway, viable if people don't do it.
To make it more difficult and expensive than it is now is foolish to
me.
Saying "choice" is masking.
Zebee
Matt Palmer
> [2]The deeds to the property include a clause that states I am obliged
> to provide, on demand, well-water for any horse ridden by the guy-who-
> sold-the-land-to-my-predecessor, and to his mounted acolytes. This dates
> back to 1866 and I'm not aware of it ever having been exercised.
Unless the clause has a successors-and-assigns bit to it, I think you can be
pretty confident that guy-and-his-acolytes aren't going to be asking you for
water in the future. A well is still handy, though.
- Matt
Eric Schwartz
> It's back to this "choice" thing. To me this idea that it's a choice
> as in "hey, lets do it, will be fun" is what's wonky.
To me, it's a choice, because if I wanted to do something different, I
could. That's what choice means, to me-- that I'm not forced into
doing it. I'm really not sure what other word could be used here-- I
have a big disconnect with what appears to be your definition of
choice, as if it inherently requires some sort of irresponsibility.
The whole point of choice, to me, is that it's made soberly and
deliberately.
I agree, btw, that if someone said, "Hey, I got an idea, let's sell
the apartment in downtown Manhattan and live in unincorporated Hickman
County, KY," that would be completely wonky, but since nobody's
talking about that, I'm not sure why you brought it up.
> Because I don't think it's that easy. Nor is a country, not mine
> anyway, viable if people don't do it.
I never said it was easy. Then again, I never said it ought to be.
> To make it more difficult and expensive than it is now is foolish to
> me.
Making it more difficult and expensive to live in the city is okay,
though?
> Saying "choice" is masking.
Saying "choice" is telling the truth, to me. I'm not sure what I
would call what you appear to be calling choice, but that wouldn't be
the word I'd pick.
-=Eric
Stuart Lamble
> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> writes:
>> It's back to this "choice" thing. To me this idea that it's a choice
>> as in "hey, lets do it, will be fun" is what's wonky.
>
> To me, it's a choice, because if I wanted to do something different, I
> could. That's what choice means, to me-- that I'm not forced into
> doing it. I'm really not sure what other word could be used here-- I
> have a big disconnect with what appears to be your definition of
> choice, as if it inherently requires some sort of irresponsibility.
> The whole point of choice, to me, is that it's made soberly and
> deliberately.
I think a large part of the problem is the concept of the choices
available to an individual, versus the choices available to the
population as a whole.
Consider two extremes: the entire population lives in cities, versus the
entire population lives on farms.
In the former case, you have no food, save that which you can buy in
from overseas. Eventually, your civilisation *will* collapse. Clearly,
it's not a sustainable situation.
In the latter case, you have plenty of food, but nothing more
sophisticated. No water, electricity, gas, etc. services; no goods (such
as tractors, and so on); etc. Clearly, also not sustainable.
In other words, while it's true that the *individual* has a choice about
how and where to live, it's also true that it is necessary for the
country as a whole for some individuals to make different choices to
other individuals. Setting up the system to discourage those different
choices from being made (even if it's only inadvertently, rather than
deliberately) is not a good thing for the health of the nation as a
whole.
It seems obvious to me that, out of a large number of people, the
majority will choose to live in suburbia (defined as cities, towns, and
their *immediate*, non-rural, surrounds.) I therefore see nothing wrong
with a slight increase in the cost of living for those people, in order
to reduce the likelihood that the other, smaller group decides it's too
expensive to live out the back of Burke and move into a city lifestyle.