Clarkson pie-eyed

[Tim Downie]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:51:27 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Downie"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> Why
>> do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they*
>> want to, not where the tracks are.
>
> Most cars are driven to where the roads go. I'm sure many people
> would like to drive into a shop in a shopping centre. Instead they
> drive to a car park and then walk to the shop.

Are you suggesting that the rail network be expanded to the same degree as
the present road network? Lets face it, that's not going to happen so most
of the time, a car will get you *much* closer to where you actually want to
go.
>
>> Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with
>> convoys of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
>
> Unless there was rather more than 1.2 person per car this scheme
> would reduce the carrying capacity of the busy railway lines.

Given that train length is limited by the present platform length (which
will be done away with), car convoys could be much longer.

I agree that in absolute efficiency terms it wouldn't be as efficient as
running on rails, but clearly the rail network *doesn't* satisfy most
peoples desire for a degree of personal freedom. Running cars in computer
controlled convoys would also be much more efficient than running them all
indivdually.

Tim

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:21:43 +0100 someone who may be The Nottingham
Duck <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>It is revealing that you compare the blowing up of some electricity
>>pylons in relatively open country with the blowing up of people on
>>trains and buses in the middle of a city.
>
>Yes,it reveals that I am fully aware of the definition of terrorism.

It is interesting that a few hours later you, unless there is an
imposter, typed the following, "I think you'll find that it is not
the definition but the context in which violent acts become
terrorism, e.g. during WWII the French Resistance committed the same
crimes as the I.R.A.,but are viewed by the British as 'freedom
fighters'.The Germans took a dimmer view. But in the context of
defeating Nazism the murder of soldiers,policemen and the bombing of
bars frequented by servicemen by the Resistance was not
terrorism,in much the same way that S.O.E. operations throughout
Europe during WWII aren't comparable to current Al Quida
activities."

>Try reading a dictionary.

They look like they make rather boring reading.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:12:47 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Downie"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Are you suggesting that the rail network be expanded to the same degree as
>the present road network?

If I had wanted to suggest that then I would have done so.

>most
>of the time, a car will get you *much* closer to where you actually want to
>go.

Train and bike can get people even closer to where they want to go.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:01:47 GMT, the person
known to the court as "ian henden" <[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

>Many drivers currently drive at 80 or 90, quite safely

For values of "quite safely" which are less safe than they would be at
70, obviously...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Nobody Here]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:51:27 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Downie"
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>Why
>>do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to,
>>not where the tracks are.
>
> Most cars are driven to where the roads go. I'm sure many people
> would like to drive into a shop in a shopping centre. Instead they
> drive to a car park and then walk to the shop.
>
>>Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys
>>of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
>
> Unless there was rather more than 1.2 person per car this scheme
> would reduce the carrying capacity of the busy railway lines.

Would it? I'd have thought that the M1 carries more people per
day between Leeds and London than the trains, but I could be wrong.
Of course, if you packed trains onto the line at whatever the minumim
spacing for trains was, and they were all full, you'd probably
be right.

--
Nobby

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach The Nottingham Duck

> After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
> of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
> which they were slaughtered .

FSVO "we". I have a sneaking suspicion that several millions Palestinians
might hold a different opinion.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The elder stoat leads, in all circumstances.

 

[David Nutter]

On 2005-09-15, Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:51:27 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Downie"
>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>>Why
>>>do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to,
>>>not where the tracks are.
>>
>> Most cars are driven to where the roads go. I'm sure many people
>> would like to drive into a shop in a shopping centre. Instead they
>> drive to a car park and then walk to the shop.
>>
>>>Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys
>>>of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
>>
>> Unless there was rather more than 1.2 person per car this scheme
>> would reduce the carrying capacity of the busy railway lines.
>
> Would it? I'd have thought that the M1 carries more people per
> day between Leeds and London than the trains, but I could be wrong.
> Of course, if you packed trains onto the line at whatever the minumim
> spacing for trains was, and they were all full, you'd probably
> be right.

The M1 is (mostly) three lanes in each direction[1], whilst the railway to
Leeds (assuming we are talking ECML only) is usually only one track in each
direction. Comparing a single lane of the M1 to the tracks might be a better
comparison. The motorway probably still carries more than the trains since
the trains don't run 24/7.

Personalised Mass Transit is a great idea in theory but I don't think our
current software engineering skills are up to implementing the necessary
control software.

Regards,

-david

[1] I think this is true all the way between Leeds and London though it gets
a bit funny further north with the A1(M).

 

[Mark Thompson]

> The U.N. are a bunch of mindless suits who do anything the Yanks tell
> them.

Eh?

> After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
> of British servicemen murdered by Zionists

As is traditional, we trained many of them. Ooops.

 

[Tony B]

Bertie Wiggins wrote:

> Clever, that. Even the UN cannot come up with a satisfactory
> definition that World leaders can agree.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Prolly could interchange "people" with "civilian" there though, but it is from a USian dictionary.

The problems really start when differentiating between our turrism (state turr or good guys causing collateral damage that needn't even be added up) and that of the fuzzy-wuzzies. Confounded by the fact that the fuzzy-wuzzies often become our respected and loyalallies, and occasionally our respected and loyal allies become fuzzy-wuzzies. And that's before deciding what is unlawful...

hth,

Tony B

 

[MartinM]

ian henden wrote:
> "MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > ian henden wrote:
> >
> >
> >> In this day and age, a motorway speed limit of 80 or 90 would be more
> >> appropriate .... with genuine enforcement of *properly* displayed lower
> >> speed limits on gantries *when justified* e.g. in poor weather. IOW -
> >> higher limits, but with more discipline!
> >
> > "Where justified" actually includes due to higher traffic volume, that
> > is precisely why the M25 VSL was introduced. Having an upper speed
> > limit of 80-90 would be a disaster as it would reduce the already
> > stretched capacity of the network, not to mention the increased
> > accidents from morons who don't know anything about braking distance
> > and drive Russian roulette stylee up peoples' backsides.
>
> Disagree. Many drivers currently drive at 80 or 90, quite safely - where
> conditions are suitable.

And if the limit goes up to 80-90 they will drive at 90-110.
It is a known fact that higher speeds reduce the capacity of roads to
carry the traffic, but do the drivers take this into account rather
than just reducing their safe reaction/braking distance?

 

[Nobody Here]

David Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-09-15, Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:
>> David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:51:27 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Downie"
>>><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>>
>>>>Why
>>>>do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to,
>>>>not where the tracks are.
>>>
>>> Most cars are driven to where the roads go. I'm sure many people
>>> would like to drive into a shop in a shopping centre. Instead they
>>> drive to a car park and then walk to the shop.
>>>
>>>>Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys
>>>>of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...
>>>
>>> Unless there was rather more than 1.2 person per car this scheme
>>> would reduce the carrying capacity of the busy railway lines.
>>
>> Would it? I'd have thought that the M1 carries more people per
>> day between Leeds and London than the trains, but I could be wrong.
>> Of course, if you packed trains onto the line at whatever the minumim
>> spacing for trains was, and they were all full, you'd probably
>> be right.
>
> The M1 is (mostly) three lanes in each direction[1], whilst the railway to
> Leeds (assuming we are talking ECML only) is usually only one track in each
> direction. Comparing a single lane of the M1 to the tracks might be a better
> comparison. The motorway probably still carries more than the trains since
> the trains don't run 24/7.

Ah, but. People sit 4 abreast on trains, so that's two lanes of car
traffic, although only one of bus

> Personalised Mass Transit is a great idea in theory but I don't think our
> current software engineering skills are up to implementing the necessary
> control software.

Well, the control software would be simple if it weren't for pesky
pedestrians, cyclists and stray animals - well, big ones, anyway, little
stray animals we already cope with.

Actually it might be that (except for the above problem) software-joined
cars might be safer than mechanical-joined trains. In an accident,
one train coach derailing for whatever reason often forces others to do
the same, because they're all joined. A software system could potentially
do something much more intelligent, because the link's both flexible and
instantly breakable. If the rail constraint was lost, too, then parts of
the train could act to avoid each other in the event of an accident by
turning sideways or whatever. The main thing is to take control away
from the moron behind the wheel, though.

--
Nobby

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:05:49 +0100, the person
known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
<[email protected]> made a statement
(<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

>After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
>of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
>which they were slaughtered .

Don't you? I do. One of the questions I asked some of the neocons re
Iraq was, given that the reason[1] given for the /Wa/ was flouting of
UN resolutions, when will they be invading Israel?

[1] It was the reason of the day, obviously, the reason for the /Wa/
being a bit of a moving target.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Alex]

At 08:36:38 on 15/09/2005, David Hansen delighted uk.rec.cycling by
announcing:

> > most
> > of the time, a car will get you much closer to where you actually want to
> > go.
>
> Train and bike can get people even closer to where they want to go.

Not if you can't get your bike on the train in the first place.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]>:
> I submit that on or about Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:05:49 +0100, the person
> known to the court as The Nottingham Duck
> <[email protected]> made a statement
> (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
> to the following effect:
>
>> After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
>> of British servicemen murdered by Zionists-because of the context in
>> which they were slaughtered .
>
> Don't you? I do. One of the questions I asked some of the neocons re
> Iraq was, given that the reason[1] given for the /Wa/ was flouting of
> UN resolutions, when will they be invading Israel?
>
> [1] It was the reason of the day, obviously, the reason for the /Wa/
> being a bit of a moving target.

Not just Israel either. Turkey has been ignoring UN resolutions over Cyprus
since 1974, but apparently that and a human rights record as tarnished as a
silver thing which hasn't been cleaned since the thirteenth century are not
sufficient cause to tell 'em to go **** up a rope when the question of EU
membership comes up...

Grr!

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of thing,
then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in high heels.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Alex wrote:

> Not if you can't get your bike on the train in the first place.

a) take a Brompton, and then you can

and/or

b) live in a civilized country where you can hire a bike cheaply right
next to the station.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Alex]

At 14:02:06 on 15/09/2005, Peter Clinch delighted uk.rec.cycling by
announcing:

> Alex wrote:
>
> > Not if you can't get your bike on the train in the first place.
>
> a) take a Brompton, and then you can

afford more than one bike and still not be allowed on the train at 8am.

> and/or
>
> b) live in a civilized country where you can hire a bike cheaply right next
> to the station.

A most helpful suggestion.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Alex wrote:

>>a) take a Brompton, and then you can

> afford more than one bike and still not be allowed on the train at 8am.

The savings a Brompton allows will often pay for it in short order.
Especially if you get one at half price thanks to the tax breaks now
being allowed for commute bikes.

And who says you won't be allowed on the train at 8 a.m.? Put a
Brompton in a bag (available as a standard option) and it's the same
size as a couple of large briefcases and not obviously a bike.

> A most helpful suggestion.

If enough people start making it and utilise any such facility then it
could be just that.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[MartinM]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> > The U.N. are a bunch of mindless suits who do anything the Yanks tell
> > them.
>
> Eh?
>
> > After all,we don't view Israel as a terror state,despite the hundreds
> > of British servicemen murdered by Zionists

I'm sure I read somewhere that during the first (failed) Gulf war as
soon as Saddam started sending scuds in Israel's direction the BBC sent
a film crew there armed with a map; only prodlem was the map was
purchased in an Arab country so there was no country shown on it.

 

[MartinM]

Tim Downie wrote:
> Colin Blackburn wrote:
> > David Martin wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Only if controlled by ATC or equivalent with similar bans for
> >> misbehaviour. Sounds like a grand idea to me.
> >
> > Similarly an automatic drive system for almost all of the tasks. It
> > would be simpler to do this if the cars were joined together somehow
> > and ran on fixed tracks...
>
> Auto-pilots yes, joined together in convoys maybe, fixed tracks, never! Why
> do you think folk own cars in the first place? To go where *they* want to,
> not where the tracks are.
>
> Now if we were to dig up all the rail tracks and replace trains with convoys
> of computer controlled cars, you might be onto something...

well in the heady days of Serpell this was just one of the sensible
solutions proposed by the MRTP; only pooters were not involved just
dedicated roads. I had visions of turnstiles so the especially
important suits could produce their first class swipe cards and use the
fast lane of the former quadruple tracked lines. And all those nice
cathedral like termini would become large car parks.

I also saw a stat somewhere that if you took a rail passenger going
into London as one notional unit of commuting space, someone walking
along the pavement was two, someone on a bus 4, and someone in a car
about 30.

 

[The Nottingham Duck]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:12:56 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:21:43 +0100 someone who may be The Nottingham
>Duck <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>>It is revealing that you compare the blowing up of some electricity
>>>pylons in relatively open country with the blowing up of people on
>>>trains and buses in the middle of a city.
>>
>>Yes,it reveals that I am fully aware of the definition of terrorism.
>
>It is interesting that a few hours later you, unless there is an
>imposter, typed the following, "I think you'll find that it is not
>the definition but the context in which violent acts become
>terrorism, e.g. during WWII the French Resistance committed the same
>crimes as the I.R.A.,but are viewed by the British as 'freedom
>fighters'.The Germans took a dimmer view. But in the context of
>defeating Nazism the murder of soldiers,policemen and the bombing of
>bars frequented by servicemen by the Resistance was not
>terrorism,in much the same way that S.O.E. operations throughout
>Europe during WWII aren't comparable to current Al Quida
>activities."
>
>>Try reading a dictionary.
>
>They look like they make rather boring reading.

The point about context was to answer the question of why the U.N.
couldn't come up with a universally agreed definition of
terrorism(because there are a few muslim countries in the U.N. if you
didn't know).
Chopping up posts and pasting quotes out of context to make yourself
look good only cheapens your intellectual stock.

The original point refers to a dictionary definition of terrorism.This
definition exists,try reading a dictionary some time,but a violent act
denounced as 'terrorist' will not be universally acknowledged as such.

e.g. a militant Malaysian muslim cleric might view a suicide bombing
committed by a Palestinian which kills Isrealis as just retribution
for the murder of a P.L.O. 'freedom fighter'. An Isreali might view it
differently.

Similarly,I can be claimed to be 'terrorising' my neighbours by
setting off fireworks in my back garden every weekend,but as far as I
am concerned I am merely enjoying a Sunday night firework display.

To sum up,Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
Just because you have been brainwashed into seeing him as a great
patriot and leader the fact remains that he employed terrorism in his
political aims.
Just because it seems to be in a good cause,it doesn't make violence
any less naughty.

Perhaps if you'd spent more time at school studying English you could
grasp these awkward ideas,and read posts properly.