Jeremy

There are some exotic, large breeds of domestic cat. For a pet cat to grow to the size of a fox is not out of the question.

YawnAlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Eh, kind've insulting some of the world there. I know. It was tongue-in-cheek.

There are many relatively powerful countries without nuclear weapons. By the same logic, they are also taking a gamble by not tooling up as we speak.

Shadow Of The Season - Screaming Trees

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How can appreciation fo music be objectively measured? Of course, it can't. But accuracy of reproduction can certainly be measured. You said that music loses something by being stored digitally... I am saying that the CD will without doubt be a more faithful reproduction of the masters that the vinyl! Nothing wrong with vinyl or valve gear of course, but people like it specifically because it colours the sound. Each to their own. Not circular logic at all, just horses for courses. Different gear for different purposes and tastes.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think trains go from ED to East Croydon? No, that service was canned a couple of years ago.

Can we put a ban on the Scots too, please? And the Aussies, always moaning about the weather. Interestingly, you can have more kids in China if you can pay for the "fines". So much for the socialist dream.

jrussel Wrote: > Ideally, we would rid our streets of all private cars jrussel = SeanMacGabhann !!!

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > build proper housing and enough of it and curb population growth. That's what I was getting at. I'm all for (much) more housing and rebalancing the supply/demand... but curbing population growth? That's one dystopian route I wouldn't want to go down!

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You need to think outside of the, that?s how > things are, mentally restrictive status quo that > people in this country can?t seem, to break free > from. I don't think I'm being mentally restrictive, I'm just trying to understand how your ideas could work... what sort of mechanisms would need to be put in place. Any ideas?

If everyone who works could afford a family home, would 1/2 bed flats be exclusively for the unemployed? Surely nobody will voluntarily live in a flat. Or would housing be assigned according to need?

My '99 Ford Focus is covered in key scratches. What statement do you think the little scrotes were trying to make? Maybe they thought I was being ostentatious too - after all, it is the 1.8 Estate (Zetec).

I hear what you're saying. Houses are too expensive, and too many fall into the hands of investors. The lowest wages are not enough to house yourself - let alone a family - without benefits. Yes, this should be addressed. But I don't think it's realistic (or even appropriate) to strive for everyone, regardless of their situation, to be paid a sufficient wage to buy - for example - a decent 3 bedroom house. Resources are finite, the numbers don't add up. And not everyone needs a home large enough to house a family. That's where the benefits system is useful, so we can try to distribute the resources according to need. It has nothing to do with oppression, there is no conspiracy. Sure, it is far from perfect - I know that many people live in sub-standard accomodation - but the principle is sound. At least in my mind.

Ligaturiosity = jrussel

Just to be clear, DJKQ... I wasn't arguing about the raise in minimum wage. In theory it sounds like a good idea - although of course a lot of thought would need to be given to the knock-on affects, including inflation. Rather, I am curious about the disdain you and Brendan show towards housing benefit. Particularly in your last message, you seem to be suggest removing housing benefits, and in some cases replacing it by augmenting benefits for families. Maybe I'm missing something here, but does it really matter? Do people care what there benefits are labelled as? The London weighting thing... we'll have to agree to disagree, I think the costs of living (apart from housing) are not that different. I was at uni in Liverpool by the way - albeit many years ago. I don't remember things being that much cheaper. Beer is a minor expense in the scheme of things.

Beer is a bit more expensive down here, but I think you're wrong on dining and food. A couple of pints a week does not justify weighting the minimum wage! And on a practical level, I doubt it would be workable. On the second point, you ignored my main argument. Different people have different outgoings, and different needs. Replacing housing benefits with a higher minimum wage would be a one-size-fits-all solution, and completely unfair to those who need the help the most.

Living the dream...

DJKQ - What else is more expensive in London, apart from housing? Most things are the same. Transport is in some cases cheaper. Brendan... we're specifically talking about unemployment here, so the housing benefit rant isn't really relevant. HOWEVER - even if the minimum wage is increased, the social safety net will always have it's place, because a living wage for a single person is not the same as a living wage for a parent with 4 kids. In plenty of other countries, the latter would be left to their own devices.

There does seem to be a case for a higher minimum wage. Not sure about London weighting though, shouldn't the more expensive living costs in London be addressed by housing benefits? Keeping the unemployed active... sounds good, but I would suggest something which would be of benefit to the community and teach skills, rather than sports.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have ripped all my CDs at max sampling rates. Still MP3 though? They will always have "that" sound to them. Have you tried FLAC/ALAC? But honestly, if you're that concerned about the quality, you shouldn't really be using an ipod! > For starters no one has managed to convert to digital without losing a little something along the way It's a myth... you don't lose anything by converting to digital, you get a much more faithful reproduction of the original sound than with analogue mediums. You actually lose accuracy/frequency respose by storing on tape/vinyl, and pick up a whole load of artifacts along the way. Some people may prefer the sound of vinyl, valve gear, etc... but it's in no way objectively better.

The Smithfields/Farringdon area is usually pretty busy on Saturdays too.

Lucy whatshername on Sky News. Given that you can't really rely on any of them, you may as well go for the best presentation.

Are You There God? It's Me, Maragaret - Mr T Experience

Magpie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > which the majority of the UK are not in favour of > > > Not sure this is true Fair enough... I was making an assumption based on the fact that I don't know many people in favour the scheme. It does seem deeply unpopular. But of course, this is not exactly a comprehensive survey. I'm not really sure how you can justify it. Most countries seem to get by just fine without nuclear weapons, what makes us so different? Especially in light of our economic problems... it just seems completely daft. Here is an enormous chunk of money which we don't *need* to spend, but we *want* to spend so that we can keep up the pretence of still being a superpower on some level.

They are basically dead, yes. To be fair, it is remarkable they lasted as long as they did.