Huguenot

It's not? Oh damn, it had me giggling ;-)

Also, CE is not renaming it - CE has been in common usage for at least 400 years (in publication) and probably for hundreds of years before that. It is simply a question of using whichever nomenclature you wish.

Not obfuscating it, just severing the connection. AD traces it's lineage back to Roman calendars based on the term of office of consuls - by renaming it Anno Domini instead of Anno Diocletiani it severed the connection. Common Era defines years by a 'commonality' - a collaborative act of convenience that reflects the most popular existing calendars of the day, predominantly Gregorian. But as I said, dates are an act of politics. I'd prefer mine to be defined by compromise, rather than a supernatural deity. That may be a technicality, but it's an important one.

Yes, to clarify, Network Rail own the infrastructure (not the TOCs) and it is a company limited by guarantee. Because the 'guarantee' is owned by HMG, it is considered for all practical and accountacy purposes to be a state owned company. Jack straw confirmed this: "... rail privatisation ... was one of the most catastrophic reorganisations, which we have had to resolve, and having done that? [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) may mock, but we brought Network Rail into public ownership..." It is Network Rail which presides over the cost of maintaining the infastucture, and it is this cost which is a third higher than similar networks in Europe. It should also be noted that the Network Rail 'profits' are owned by the government: there are no shareholders getting paid off. i.e. it is the state-owned part of the rail network that is inefficient, not the private part.

BTW - nationalisation would do nothing to 'solve' the South London train nightmare which hinges totally upon infrastructure, not investment or ambition.

I'm just not sure whether any of the assumptions you've made are valid? They seem to be the following, nationalisation will... Transfer even more of the cost of travel from the passenger to the taxpayer Stop engineering works at weekends, and do them at night instead Reduce the amount of trains on popular routes by preventing 'competition' Make it more cost effective because cash paid out in 'profit' will no longer be paid (Somewhat bizarrely) be better service than a private one (ha ha! remember BR??) Whilst there's an 'ideological' debate about the first point, I can't see any evidence that the second point is true, and I can't find any reason for supporting the third point. The second to last suggestion is extremely questionable, and I believe based on a false premise. Subsidies of TOCs have decreased significantly since privatision. Take this (from the RMT): "Using the data provided by the SRA, it can be seen that the level of subsidies has declined from more than ?2bn in 1996 to ?1.2bn in 2003. Subsidies constituted a massive 71 per cent of total income in 1996, and 45 per cent in 1997, the two years before the franchises were fully operational. The lowest level of subsidies was in 2002 at 21%." That subsidy figure was at ?1.0bn by 2009, at less than 20%. At the same time income for TOCs has tripled and been reinvested in the service - not paid out in 'profits'. Training Operating Companies are only generating 3%-5% annually in operating profit (and remember that's taxed), so if your proposed changes increased costs by 5%(not unknown in the bloated and inefficient nationalised sector), you've lost all the financial advantages you claimed. Privatisation has undoubtedly transferred the cost of train travel from the taxpayer to the passenger, but the simultaneous outcome has been massive reinvestment in the service from 3bn to over 6bn annually, not profiteering. Regards your last point, the total number of timetable kilometers have risen by 35% since privatisation - meaning a better service by all reasonable measurements. I don't really understand your logic behind the 'loan' from the treasury - if it's being paid off by the taxpayer it's just more government expenditure - all you've tried to do is hide it. In all then I think you've rather been drawn in by the 'hype' regarding fare rises and poor service, and it doesn't bear up under scrutiny.

Absolutely, it is evolving over time - to CE. I'm afraid that the majority of the world don't worship this God, have no wish to offer him dominion over them, and don't use the term AD. Time is a secular, universal and mathematical - certainly not religious concept. 'Owning' the calendar was a smart bit of marketing designed to push God. Having a whinge about the passing of this fad is the same as whinging about the demise of cigarette advertising on F1 cars. Religion is transitory, fragmented and political concept. We have seconds, not archangels. Why should our years be defined by God?

It seems to me that AD is religious and CE is secular. It comes as no surprise that religious people don't see why everybody can't be religious too, so long as it's their religion. AD, as with many dating systems, was created to synchronise with other existing dating systems, as does CE. It does seem a bit colonial to go around claiming that time is defined by 'our Lord'. The fact that AD coincides with the dating system used by the Common Era seems a most inclusive approach that should be celebrated rather than God botherers claiming they have a monopoly. Silverfox, go ahead and use AD as you wish, but don't expect me to worship your Gods, or in fact have any respect for them at all. Interestingly enough, years previous to 525 CE are completely fictitious, as the system wasn't devised until then.

I've been approached a number of times by people requesting to start the calendar from my own birth, but I've turned them down gracefully. My laptop seems to think the world started in 1905. It doesn't really do dates prior to that. I would have thought Boxing Day 1791 would have been a more logical choice. I'm wondering what sort of significant date in the future could precipitate another year zero to be generally accepted. Interstellar travel perhaps?

I meant that renting was no more a mugs game in 1998 than at any other time, so it didn't have a sudden impact on house prices. Whether or not renting is actually a mugs game depends on your circumstances. However, it doesn't escape from the fact that the principle responsibility for creating a generation of disposessed youth lies at the feet of buy-to-let landlords and their facilitators. It's uncomfortable truth, but until we recognise it, we cannot solve the problem. Multiple property ownership outside of housing associations should be brutally taxed, and incentives should be put in place to faciltate tenants to rent-to-buy.

I don't think it's a question of everyone doing whatever they want - it's about finding a mutually comprehensible solution to ease communication and cooperation. Clearly if you are by nature uncooperative, this may be low on your list of priorities. Common Era, like Anno Domini, starts in theory from a completely arbitrary time in history loosely related to a supernatural figure still worshipped by delusional sects. However, in practice it starts from the last time the date was arbitrarily changed, on the 24th February 1582. It created havoc, because delusional idiots thought the changing of the date stole 10 days from their lives. I would have thought it's highly unlikely that Common Era with still be counted from then in a million years. Dates are an arbitrary political construct, and so year zero is often applied to dates that have cultural significance. The French Revolution has a year zero in 1792, and Cambodia has a year zero in 1975.

Somebody's going to claim Star Wars was filmed in Shepperton Studios next, and doesn't accurately reflect the racial make up of Mos Eisley. The Cantina reflected the myriad of ethnicities really well - they should have based the whole film there. You can landspeed past cantinas that are just like this. Do me a favour and please don't pretend Uncle Owen accrately reflected the people of Tatooine over the past three decades.

You need a robust one. I've had two iPads meltdown on me, and the last time I got a replacement the guy in front of me was refused as a scratch on the case was percieved as evidence of improper use.

There'll be a few broken legs leaving the upstairs flat.

It's CE, silverfox, not ACE. It seems perfectly reasonable and sensible. AD is wrong anyhow, there's substantial evidence that this Jesus chap wasn't born in year zero. I can't really believe that silverfox has even used the initials AD when writing a date in the last ten years. If you rarely leave your front room aside from nipping out for a copy of the Mail, it probably doesn't really matter. However, in China (home to a quarter of the world's population) that calendar is frequently referred to as 'computer time'. AD is never used. Common Era would probably be easier for them to translate and understand. Anno Domini simply does not make sense for us Godless heathens. Mind you, Mail readers probably think Chinese people should just shine shoes. Hence it probably makes sense to force them to use AD and keep hitting them until they agree?

Sorry I'm late, I'm only giving it 30% today. Like every other day. It's likely that I'll get really angry and try and organise a strike if you're late with paying me though. Today is magazine reading day, but I can interrupt it to have a chat with a girlfriend about the fact that she saw an ex-boyfriend walking past a shop. Do you want a cup of tea? It's my tea break now, like every other minute of the day.

But seriously, after 2000 years of burning dissenters and torturing 16 year old girls who need a bit of loving care, who really gives a monkeys about Christians getting some verbal on the BBC? Most people who burned on a stake drowned in their own lungs desperate attempts to lubricate the flames. Get a sense of perspective, please.

Can you use your accountant's address as a registered address? That might give you legal transparency whilst protecting your privacy?

Really? I didn't see anyone teasing boffins here, I did see someone mention something about trying to 'sound clever' (implying that they're not clever), which is tantamount to using the phrase 'so-called'. That's what made me recall Naughton's comment. I'm not cross about it, just resigned to the paucity of enthusiasm for science. But I'll bow to your better judgment.

Sorry SJ, that's simply not the case. The fact that 'supply' was fixed doesn't mean it's not a supply and demand market. Renting has always been a mugs game, and it had no impact on the latest housing boom, which effectively ran from 1998 to 2007. In 1998 only 1% of housing loans were buy-to-let. By 2006 they accounted for 9%. When you take a market that's in restricted supply anyway, and suddenly introduce a 9% higher demand upon it, the market's screwed. The fact that people thought the housing market was zero risk added to the demand, and drove the prices people were prepared to pay even higher. In 2001 the market saw the first mortgages offered at over 100% of value (up to 125%), and saw a huge change in the multiples of salary that lenders were willing to make - from a traditional 3x to as much as 8x by the middle of the decade. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/UK_house_prices_adjusted_for_inflation.png/450px-UK_house_prices_adjusted_for_inflation.png

John Naughton had an interesting view on this: "Britain is a country in which the word "intellectual" is often preceded by the sneering adjective "so-called", where smart people are put down because they are "too clever by half" It is a sign of the miserable psychology of modern Britain that people would come on to a thread about the exciting world of science in order to sneer at it. I read New Scientist because it is inspiring and full of hope, a celebration of the spirit of inquiry and the creativity of our fellow men. Shame on those who would belittle it. ;-)

House price inflation is a simple case of supply and demand. Demand was artificially driven by the availability of cheap credit and clever financial products and government incentives that created a buy-to-let frenzy. The simple solution is to take away these incentives and financial solutions for buy-to-let, starting with the deal that allows landlords to put mortgage interest payments against tax as a business expense. I suspect that this obvious solution doesn't appeal to many on this forum because it doesn't achieve an underlying goal of punishing rich people by taking away their houses or stripping them of their income. Every other avenue should be explored before trying to asset strip people for whom a house is a home.

Totally agree with you MM, although you're talking about the impact of competition, rather than parents running the schools. Local experience in ED suggests that when parents get involved with schools, it tends to be a minority of not particularly bright bullies messing it up for everyone. Happy with free schools, but religion should be nowhere near them.

Well, unless you view 'not paying tax' as 'subsidy', what you said made no sense. To be honest a lot of what you said makes no sense. This talk about people buying houses as an investment is simply not true for the vast majority of the population - and is hackneyed cliche worthy of the Mail. The vast majority of people do not 'live there for a little while', they live there. When they move house that's because they need to live somewhere else. You have in your mind's eye a tiny fraction of society who do have the opportunity to trade in property, and what you're proposing is to punish the entire population for their behaviour.

"But house prices should not be further subsidised by the taxpayer" Did you just say that because it sounded good in your head?