Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Dec 2006 16:00 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:1e094$4580b028$4fe760c$30930(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:45789446.A41A58B4(a)hotmail.com... >> >>> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>And that shows he's (a) dumb as a fence post; (b) out of touch with >>>>>reality; >>>>>(c) both (a) and (b). >>>> >>>>I vote she is C. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>You've been trying all along to move the damn goalposts. >>>>> >>>>>I've been trying to tell you right-wing zealots you don't know what >>>>>you're >>>>>talking about. "Poor" to you seems to mean playing golf at a public >>>>>course instead of a private one. >>>> >>>>Yes, generally speaking _if_ you can buy your own house you certainly >>>>are >>>>not poor. >>> >>>It may make you 'poor' though in terms of what you can then afford ! >> >> >> Then we fall into the debate of what is "poor." The term is often used >> (sometimes interchangeably with "poverty") to mean a relative level of >> spending power. I am not sure if this is how I would use the term and to >> be honest, I am not sure if I would be able to define poor at short >> notice. > > Where I live there are many "poor" homeowners. Lots are subsidized > by government grants to the poor to assist with their housing > and food and medical costs. > > It is cheaper, in the end, for the government to leave them in > the location/housing they're in than to force a foreclosure > and pay the presently existing rental rates in the region. > > Most are elderly and/or ill. About 20% of all households are > comprised of a single individual over 65 years of age. The per > capita income for the county as a whole is a little over $16,000US. > >> My feelings are that if you can afford to buy a house, you are not poor. >> You have resolved one of the basic needs (shelter) and given that house >> prices will invariably rise over time you have an investment. You >> probably have managed to save up around �5k for a deposit which means you >> really are not poor. > > If you look at some sort of generic case of an individual who grew > up in suburbia and have a specific storyline to go along with that > then in the narrow sense of the scenario you're probably right. > > Then again, a clever individual can (as has occasionally been done) > acquire a property through adverse posession or perhaps at a tax sale. Like all generalisations my comments were not applicable in all circumstances. I have done some looking through estate agent websites and the like, and I can now (with 99% certainty) state that there are no homes within a 90 minute drive of the city where I work for under �100,000. The vast (80%+) majority of jobs are concentrated in the city, with rural jobs pretty much being shop assistants earning next to nothing. Additional research over this last week has also identified that the "average" (with all the problems that term carries) price for a 2-bed flat in a Rural area is �110,000 and in an urban area it is �160,000. Now the VAST majority of jobs are service "industry" jobs with an average salary of �10 - 15,000 (Graduates get the top half). Managerial jobs get in the region of �20 - 25,000 but most of these are asking for a lot of experience so we can assume it will take a graduate 5 - 6 years to get to this stage. Although the origins of this debate are lost in the sands of time, the problem (no matter if /BAH chooses to admit its existence or not) is that for someone leaving school at 18, getting their first job at about �10,000 per year have to be subsidised (parents or whoever) to live. If you are earning �15000 you will never get a mortgage for more than about �53,000. If you get a joint mortgage (two people) you dont get double the single, you get an extra lump for the second person - as a result even sharing a flat with a friend is not much help. The alternatitive is rent. Rent rises with house prices. 1 Bed flats in the city (the only place they exist) are being rented out for �800 per month. For some one on �10,000 a year this leaves �400 a YEAR to live on. Now, I havent tried it myself, but I would truly be amazed to see some one live (eat, drink, heat themselves, wear clothes and travel to - from work) for just over �33 per month. > The city near me owns a number of properties they ended up with > as owners because the buildings were derelict and dangerous and > abandoned. Often they experienced a fire, and essentially nobody > wanted them. I know of one that was sold by the state for a few > hundred dollars and again abandoned by the buyer when they > realized how rough the property was. Now that the buildings have > been torn down by the city (at city expense) the land is available > for a song (how does $2500 for a half acre city lot with water, > sewer, gas, electric, cable, and telephone sound?) How much would it cost to build a house? > Interestingly one can legally install a house trailer on the lot. > > Even more interestingly such house trailers, in usable condition, > are frequently given away for the cost of transport. Families > who lived in them for a few decades finally build a regular house > on their lot and *must* get rid of the trailer in order to occupy > the house. > > It is easy, in this environment, to end up a mortgage free homeowner > with only a few thousand US$ cash in hand, and still be poor. For > God's sakes we're talking about being a homeowner for the cost of > an inexpensive car. Interesting economy. I dont tend to include trailer homes when I talk of "house ownership." >> Obviously if you go with out food, clothing, heat, transport etc to >> afford the house you are still poor (and will die soon - hunger if >> nothing else :-) ) and really shouldnt have bought the house. > > Not always. Maybe not always, but generally speaking.
From: T Wake on 14 Dec 2006 16:04 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:elritl$8qk_004(a)s953.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <elqdjs$8mh$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <elp63h$8qk_007(a)s896.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <elmh2m$88k$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <457D707B.125ED31C(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>[.....] >>>>>Secularism is speading. I believe what we are seeing may be no more >>>>>than a >>>>>religious backlash against 'modern thought'. I rather feel it's dommed >>>>>to >>>fail. >>>>> >>>>>As a kid I recall it was unheard of not to be Christian. Now no-one >>>>>even >>>blinks >>>>>an eye about it but I would like to see our first atheist Prime >>>>>Minister >>>though. >>>> >>>>The trend is the other way in the US. A smallish fraction of >>>>"christian" >>>>thinking has gained a large following and significant power since the >>>>1940s. The real threat (long term) of extremists is from the home grown >>>>ones. >>> >>>That danger is now secondary in a list of priorities. The danger >>>will disppear if Western civilization is destroyed. >> >>No, that danger is the one that has the greatest odds of being the one >>that destroys western civilization. > > I'm not talking about odds. I'm talking about setting priorities. Do you know how priorities are determined? They are not the "nonexistent threat that /BAH thinks is greatest" gets the highest priority....
From: T Wake on 14 Dec 2006 16:05 <crank_hunter(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1166107541.911866.9160(a)16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Eric Gisse wrote: Aha, Elatis is disguise is stalking Eric.
From: T Wake on 14 Dec 2006 16:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:elrj0l$8qk_005(a)s953.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4580F3D5.389037B1(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >>Secularism is speading. I believe what we are seeing may be no more >>> >>than > a >>> >>religious backlash against 'modern thought'. I rather feel it's dommed >>> >>to >>> >>fail. >>> >> >>> >>As a kid I recall it was unheard of not to be Christian. Now no-one >>> >>even >>> >>blinksan eye about it but I would like to see our first atheist Prime >>> Minister >>> >>though. >>> > >>> >The trend is the other way in the US. A smallish fraction of >>> >"christian" >>> >thinking has gained a large following and significant power since the >>> >1940s. The real threat (long term) of extremists is from the home >>> >grown >>> >ones. >>> >>> That danger is now secondary in a list of priorities. The danger >>> will disppear if Western civilization is destroyed. >> >>And who's exactly going to *destroy* it ? > > It is a stated goal by people we call Islamic extremists. So what? Lots of idiots state "goals." > If you haven't noticed, they have been making a lot of progress towards > that goal. No they haven't.
From: T Wake on 14 Dec 2006 16:06
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:q702o258h57vm3n7lgf7d8l4urg6sirntf(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:10:51 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >Ken Smith wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >JoeBloe wrote: >>> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >The reason Europe's doing Galileo is of course because the USA >>> >> >> >can't >>> >> >> >be trusted. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Your knowledge of the world is such a hideous joke. >>> >> > >>> >> >" With Galileo, the European Union (EU) intends to achieve >>> >> >independence from >> >the >>> >>> >> >USA's GPS (Global Positioning System) and the Russian Federation's >>> >> >Global Navigation >>> >> >Satellite System GLONASS. Whilst Galileo, as a joint project >>> >> >undertaken >>> >> >by the EU and >>> >> >the European Space Agency ESA, is compatible and interoperable with >>> >> >GPS, it >>> >> >guarantees independent and reliable usability. " >>> >> > >>> >> >http://www.bmvbs.de/en/Transport/Integrated-transport-policy-,2069/Galileo.htm >>> >> > >>> >> >*independent* and *reliable* >>> >> >>> >> BTW: Do you know if the Galileo system has the same intentional >>> >> distortions as the GPS system? If not, it could be combined with the >>> >> GPS >>> >> to make better estimates. >>> > >>> >I'm not aware of any equivalent to selective availability etc. It's >>> >apparently been >>> >designed for 1 metre accuracy from the start as well. >>> > >>> > >>> >Unlike the US and Russian equivalents it's targeted primarily at >>> >commercial use AIUI. >>> > >>> >Graham >>> >>> It won't even be around for well over three more years, and GPS is >>> already ubiquitous. It (Galileo) has lost before even arriving at the >>> gate. >> >>On the contrary. >> >>Galileo offers higher precision so can be used for entirely new >>applications. >> >>Graham >> > Tell me what you *think* the precision of our GSP system is, and > tell what you *think* the precision of your system is going to be > three plus years from now when it just starts coming online. > > I'll bet that you get both answers incorrect. How ironic this post is.... |