Jeremy

Do Nothing - The Specials

Of course I endorse the message... but the posters don't say anything new, they're just deliberately courting cheap controversy. They're hardly going to "convert" anyone, are they?

Forever Young - Alphaville

That's in Peckham though, innit!

Ring of Fire - Johnny Cash

Fire - Jimi Hendrix

Yep... had enough of these things, and that preposterous graph is a waste of server space!

Lovers Rock - The Clash

Rocks off - Stones

Down In The Tube Station At Midnight - The Jam

Clash City Rockers - The Clash

I notice that the old 3 Monkeys site in Herne Hill has been taken over by Mela (nice modern-ish Indian restaurant on Shaftesbury avenue). Has anyone tried it?

I loved the original short story, so asked my brother to buy me a cheap (but official) copy of Next from Thailand. Oh dear. The last half hour was totally preposterous, and it doesn't stand up as a sci-fi because there are too many contradictions. Has Nick Cage been in anything good for the last 10 years? At all?

White Riot - The Clash (see what I did there?)

Sorry, pedant alert, I know the previous post was not altogether serious... watt is a measurement of power, not energy! For energy, you need joules, or kilowatt hours. Population of 15-64 year olds: 40 million. 1 hour a day each average 0.08 KW of power Works out as 3.2 million KWh per year. UK energy consumption is around 350 billion KWh per year. Better start peddling!

One problem which is often cited regarding wind turbines is that the level of wind is not reliable. There was another discussion on here a while back about energy storage, or a possible "global grid", which was an interesting concept. I have to be honest, I am not so bothered about concrete foundations, access roads, or aesthetic issues - to me, these are preferable to the side effects of conventional power stations. And I don't really buy the oil and gas conspiracy stuff, isn't the UK a net importer of oil? And in any case, it's in the interest of the energy giants to look into renewable technologies as future revenue earners, because at some point it will no longer be cost effective to drill for what little oil we have left. Wave energy is in it's infancy, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out... especially after the embarrasment of "Salters Duck". But on it's own it won't be enough, that much is certain. We'll need to harness all the energy available to us... be it wave, tidal, wind, solar... it seems unfortunately inevitable that nuclear fission power stations are here to stay, but hopefully they can be kept to a minimum if there is a real effort to push renewable sources and reduce consumption.

Ben Folds latest album, and Flogging Molly.

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jeremy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sorry, I can't stand it when people talk about > > renewable energy, but when push comes to shove > > they'd rather burn fossil fuels than spoil > their > > idyllic countryside views. > > > > Anyway, off topic... > > > No - I wouldn't rather burn fossil fuels and I > will talk about renewable energy. If you do a > little research you will find that wind farms are > not the way forward and it's nothing to do with > the view. My comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you. Although I guess it was partly influenced by what you said. What are the drawbacks from your perspective? Wildlife? Noise? The fact that they are fairly inefficient, so arguably the cost outweights the benefit? I'm not ignorant in the ways of renewable energy... it seems to me that if we are to stop burning fossil fuels, our choices are to either ramp up the nuclear plants, or harness every single bit of renewable energy available to us (as well as reducing consumption).

Sorry, I can't stand it when people talk about renewable energy, but when push comes to shove they'd rather burn fossil fuels than spoil their idyllic countryside views. Anyway, off topic...

Seriously Loz, WTF? You seem to be accusing me of sexism, which I've got to pull you up on. You're way out of line. I am just stating the bleeding obvious, you on the other hand, sound like you have some agenda here. Have you been the victim of violence? Or are you just trying to preach naive political correctness? And why have you gone off on a tangent, with talk of domestic violence and gangs? Your posts are irrational, I have no intention of continuing this absurd argument with you (famous last words).

I don't like Charles' attitude to renewable energy though... he tries to come accross as a strong advocate, yet he is strongly opposed to wind farms because he thinks they look ugly.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However, under the Civil List, the royal family > gives up their Crown Estate revenue in return for > parliament paying their expenses. > > Since the revenue from the Crown Estates is just > under ?200m, and the Civil List only amounts to > ?12m, then tax payers receive a net return of > ?188m per annum for retaining the royal family. Interesting argument, I hadn't thought of it that way. But the crown estate is not the private property of the Monarchy. The Queen can't just do what she wants with it. Hypothetically, if the monarchy was dismantled, I'm guessing the estate would just be absorbed into the government. So I'm not sure we can use it as a way of justifying the monarchy...

Quids, I've worked in equity and rates derivs for around 5 years - admittedly in a peripheral role. The companies I've worked for have sold products to clients, which they use to gain exposure or manage risk. They are instruments... tools... with well defined payoffs. The clients know what they are buying and can guess pretty much how much commission we take above the fair value, I don't believe it constitutes ripping anyone off, so that's why I objected to the pyramid selling analogy. Mortgage derivatives are a bit more of a grey area, but still... I think the pyramid comparison is not accurate.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not at all controversial. Just wrong. A woman is > more likely to be a victim of domestic violence, > but that doesn't make the male victims somehow a > non-issue. We're not talking about dometic violence. We're talking about random strangers approaching members of the opposite gender on the street, making suggestive remarks, and maybe more. You really, seriously, can't see that it could be more intimidating for women rather than men? Honestly?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh, go on then Jeremy... enlighten me. What are these 'obvious reasons'? Quite simply... a woman is more likely to feel physically threatened by a man than vice versa. I don't think I'm being controversial here, am I?