Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Dec 2006 09:53 In article <4581EAB2.567DA43D(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Lloyd Parker wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>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. >> > >> >Well, as the chances of "western civilisation" being destroyed in less than >> >a generation or two is almost non-existent, it seems this is a more pressing >> >concern. >> >> I love these right-wingers. Man can't damage the earth with CFCs or global >> warming, but a few radicals can destroy western civilization. > >There's a questionable presumption there that 'man' is responsible for global >warming. > >Graham > Uh, not in science, there is not. At least not among scientists not on the payroll of the oil companies or right-wing "think tanks."
From: T Wake on 15 Dec 2006 15:09 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:raa5o2d0df7s0m2bup22mo0pa2tqsl9thq(a)4ax.com... > On 14 Dec 2006 06:45:41 -0800, crank_hunter(a)yahoo.com Gave us: > >>Crank Alert is a free service by Crank Hunter > > > You service nothing but your own bent brain, dipshit. Aren't you just a barrel of fun. I bet you get invited to lots of parties. Do you have a bow tie that spins around and flower which squirts water?
From: T Wake on 15 Dec 2006 15:37 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6e5ad$4581e845$4fe7247$6483(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> 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. > > I agree you've done the ordinary homework. Why thank you. I assume that was not meant to be patronising. > But you must realize that > it a real bargain did come into the marketplace the realtors, who > are the first to usually see such things, would never let it pass > through their hands without wresting any available profit from > a piece of real estate for themselves. Not sure what you are talking about here, but it doesnt seem to apply to property in the UK. When some one wants to sell a house, the Estate Agent (Realtor) may handle the deal for them but this is not compulsory nor was it the case in about 50% of the houses I looked at (I am planning to buy another house). Now, on the topic of "ordinary homework" - you are, once more, using a rare situation as a generalisation. Yes, every now and then a real bargain will appear *but* pretty much as soon as it appears people will snap it up. Trust me, while I may procrastinate about buying a �200,000 two bedroom house, if the same house was available for even �100,000 I would buy it now. > There are better bargains available, I'll bet even in your part > of the world, if you start really digging for them. I am sure there are. In the area I mentioned there are about 6x10^5 people of working age (www.statistics.gov.uk verifies this estimate) and about 2x10^4 people between the ages of 20 - 24. These are the ones most likely to be looking for houses. Assume 50% are married and housed, this still leaves over 10,000 people looking for houses. While there may be the occasional bargain it doesn't really provide a reliable goal to "plan" on. There are about 1-2000 houses on the market at any given time. This ten to one ratio of buyers to sellers ensures that the price is pretty much _always_ high. > In Westbury NY, that's the first of the levittown developments > I'm talking about, sits a terribly shabby house on Hark Lane > with a hole in the roof with two sisters and a brother living > in it with nothing fixed since their parents died maybe 1965 > or so. There's a hole in the roof and the ceiling on the 2nd > floor fell in. The father's 1962 car sits in the garage on 4 > flat tires, utouched since he died since none of the kids has > a license nor could they afford instuance. > > When the last of them dies or moves away, don't expect to see > this house in the available listings. > > I can assure you that this is one of some thousands in a similar > state for various reasons within an hour of downtown Mahanhatten > NYC. > > Now granted that empty lot is today worth US$ 300K, but if I were > an entrepreneurial youth today I'd head over there and cut them a > deal they couldn't refuse. What if the deal they couldn't refuse was US$300,000? If you were a rich entrepreneurial youth you would be onto a winner. If you weren't, unlucky. > Those houses have been split into > two flats in many cases. I'd have them *give* me the place, do > a rehab with me taking over the upstairs, and let them live out > their lives in a refurbished downstairs apartment for their trouble. > > What BAH has been saying, and in this I completely agree, is that > almost anyone with some funds and an imagination can end up owning > a home/house. But one has to think rather outside the box to pull > it off. The key, which I am saying, is the "some funds" part of that. >> The vast (80%+) majority of jobs are concentrated in the city, with rural >> jobs pretty much being shop assistants earning next to nothing. > > Yes. This too is true most of the time and for most people. Given the > internet and the sorts of things available to an extraordinary person > (define extraordinary at your own risk) there are some of us who > can make a fine living literally anywhere. I am sure there are. I am not sure why you are using the "extraordinary" to contradict a generalisation though. >> 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. > > So long as one is on a rather mundane/ordinary tenure track, yes. Yes, there will be _some_ people who are ahead of the curve and some behind it. What the debate here is about is the majority of people. Not the few "exceptional" ones who either through luck, skill or a combination can succeed anywhere. Out of the 20-odd thousand 20 - 29 year olds in my area, about 19,000 will fall into the GB�10 - 15k salary bracket. They are the ones who no matter of good ideas, no matter of wonderful opportunities, will not be able to "make an offer" on something because they are living on almost the breadline. I seem to recall the argument stems from children of rich parents haveing more chance at success than ones of poor parents. I can pretty much guarantee if you are a child of poor parents in my county, your chances of "success" are drastically lower than if your parents are rich. If someone only has enough money to eat, risking it may not be an option. >> 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. > > In 1964 I finished my formal schooling, had a wife, 3 children, and a > carry home of $5300. On that I paid everything and could have afforded > to buy the house I was renting but took a pass on it (to tweak Lloyd > a bit, it was in the Atlanta area and today is a black neighborhood.) > >> 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. > > http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/id/502.htm > > And here's an inteesting twist: > > http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/id/515.htm > There aren't things like that in the UK - they are too socialist for us. We have recently introduced a scheme where "essential" workers (Nurses, Teachers, etc) can get a government loan of 25% of the house value. While helpful, this doesn't do much as it helps support the raised house prices. There is no way some one in the UK can get a �100k, 33 year mortgage paying �300 a month. > I'll bet if you were to dig deeply enough you'd find some similar > stuff in your country. > >> 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. > > I once actually rented, for a month, a two room house with no bathroom > facilities. I never moved into it, however. Once again, that was > in Lloyd's back yard. Actually, as I rent out houses I am quite glad rental prices are so high. :-) >>>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 $2500 for a half acre city lot with water, >>>sewer, gas, electric, cable, and telephone sound?) > >> How much would it cost to build a house? > > Build? Not sure. Local building supply co will provide all the > materials for a 2 car garage with finished apartment above (less > concrete) for around 12K per their latest published catalog. We > build a lot of frame housing here in the US. Surely there is a good reason to start building houses then? What is the housing market like? Being able to build your own house for 15k seems very reasonable and even selling them on for 30k would give a worthwhile profit margin. But then again, I am well off enough to have the funds to put aside for a project like this. When I was 19, I certainly was not. >>>Interestingly one can legally install a house trailer on the lot. > >>>Even more interestingly such house trailers, in usable condition, >>>are frequently given away for the cost of transport. Families >>>who lived in them for a few decades finally build a regular house >>>on their lot and *must* get rid of the trailer in order to occupy >>>the house. > >>>It is easy, in this environment, to end up a mortgage free homeowner >>>with only a few thousand US$ 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." > > I'd have to see if anyone has done an inventory but in my county > I'd bet 1000US$ that at least 4% of all homes are trailers. In > some areas of Florida the percentage is much higher. We're > probably not quite as union labor oriented as you folks. I have no idea what that has to do with trailers vs "real" houses. > Where we > are, for example Cook County, Illinois, they're banned from > installing any new ones. As a result, over time, there will be > none in the county. > > My county incorporates "building code requirements" for trailers. > You can't just bring in and set up any old piece of junk. Florida, > generally speaking, has cable down requirements for permanently > situated trailers in order to keep the winds from tossing them > about. > > BTW, last fall I bought a 32 foot "travel trailer" used for $5K. > It is immaculate, In fact the only thing that's aged is the carpet > in about 1/2 the floor space. > > I could *easily* live in this thing. In fact, it would be ideal > for a couple. It has a 5 foot sliding patio door in it. Next > spring I am taking it on the road for a while, so for some > months it will be home.
From: Eeyore on 15 Dec 2006 16:19 JoeBloe wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:19:34 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >" The encrypted Commercial Service (CS) will be available for a fee and will offer an accuracy > >of better than 1 m. > > You have already lost. GPS is more accurate than that. " The CS can also be complemented by ground stations to bring the accuracy down to less than 10 cm " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_positioning_system Graham
From: jasen on 16 Dec 2006 18:20
On 2006-12-14, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > It is a stated goal by people we call Islamic extremists. If > you haven't noticed, they have been making a lot of progress > towards that goal. USA should stop helping them then! Bye. Jasen |