less cars : roll on $2 per litre

[Travis]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2006-08-16, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Me, I'm just going to keep drinking my organic scotch.
> > Mmm, C_2H_5OH.
>
> I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust
> *anybody*.

How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?

Travis

 

[Resound]

"Travis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> On 2006-08-16, TimC <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > Me, I'm just going to keep drinking my organic scotch.
>> > Mmm, C_2H_5OH.
>>
>> I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust
>> *anybody*.
>
> How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?
>
> Travis
>

It's far easier than keeping them in sub-atomic form. Putting them together
when you need them is soooo fiddly. Worse than making nori rolls.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-16, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> On 2006-08-16, TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Me, I'm just going to keep drinking my organic scotch.
>> > Mmm, C_2H_5OH.
>>
>> I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust
>> *anybody*.
>
> How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?

In very diffuse form. I believe the starburst galaxy NGC 253 is
mixing up a vodka martini right now. Shaken, not stirred.

--
TimC
Just because they are called 'forbidden' transitions does not mean
that they are forbidden. They are less allowed than allowed
transitions, if you see what I mean. --unknown

 

[Travis]

Resound wrote:

> >> I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust
> >> *anybody*.
> >
> > How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?
> >
> > Travis
> >
>
> It's far easier than keeping them in sub-atomic form. Putting them together
> when you need them is soooo fiddly. Worse than making nori rolls.

That's true. Its so easy to ruin dinner when just a few of the quarks
have the wrong flavour.

Travis

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-16, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Resound wrote:
>
>> >> I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust
>> >> *anybody*.
>> >
>> > How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?
>> >
>> > Travis
>> >
>>
>> It's far easier than keeping them in sub-atomic form. Putting them together
>> when you need them is soooo fiddly. Worse than making nori rolls.
>
> That's true. Its so easy to ruin dinner when just a few of the quarks
> have the wrong flavour.

This tastes like bottom!

I ordered strange!

--
TimC
Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely
charm. Charm ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but
up and down are forever." - The Laws of Physics

 

[Travis]

TimC wrote:

> This tastes like bottom!
>
> I ordered strange!

Hahah, somebody's gotta submit that one to AHBOU!

Travis

 

[Resound]

"TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-16, Travis (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>
>> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>>> On 2006-08-16, TimC <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Me, I'm just going to keep drinking my organic scotch.
>>> > Mmm, C_2H_5OH.
>>>
>>> I mixed this water myself. Two parts H, one part O. I don't trust
>>> *anybody*.
>>
>> How do you keep the H's and O's in atomic form?
>
> In very diffuse form. I believe the starburst galaxy NGC 253 is
> mixing up a vodka martini right now. Shaken, not stirred.
>
With an olive or slices of cucmber?

 

[LotteBum]

Thanks ya *******. I have three kids who are involved in a lot of
activities. It simply can't be done without driving. This petrol hike is killing me financially and the only thing I could do about it is pull them out of their sports, debating, choir, theatre sports, etc. Wishing for that to happen is mean and nasty. The ideal world is one where we have unlimited access to whatever we want, but choose to use only what we need.

I never thought I'd hear someone who sends three children to one of Brisbane's elite private schools complain about the price of petrol.

If it really has such a huge impact on your finances, then buy a more fuel efficient car.... or exchange your kids for less needy ones.

Lotte

 

[LotteBum]

I do wear rose-tinted glasses while cycling, but they don't work so well when making decisions about my kids' education.

I think you'll find that Yeronga State High isn't so bad. I often chat to the school captain and he is a delightful 'kid' striving for an OP1 or 2 "Which I think I can achieve". It has a lot more to do with the attitude of parents than the school kids go to.

Lotte

 

[scotty72]

AndrewJ wrote:
> Is it just my imagination, or are there actually less cars out there?
> Seems to me that it is starting to reduce slightly.
>
> Roll on $2 per litre.

Thanks ya *******. I have three kids who are involved in a lot of
activities. It simply can't be done without driving. This petrol hike
is killing me financially and the only thing I could do about it is
pull them out of their sports, debating, choir, theatre sports, etc.
Wishing for that to happen is mean and nasty. The ideal world is one
where we have unlimited access to whatever we want, but choose to use
only what we need.

Donga

How about stop micromanging their lives and tell to go to the park and kick a ball, build a billy cart or something 'radical' like that.

No, better to pay for some instructor to get them out of your hair, right?

Scotty

 

[scotty72]

My hope is that the kids' sports will become better organised... currently the travel involved in getting kids to games is ridiculous, sometimes driving for twice the time the game actually takes It's not a good use of resources, and means instead of the youngsters having, say, 3 hours of possible activity, they spend 2 hours sitting in a car.

Bring back local leagues!!!

ali

Well - bloody - said.

 

[suzyj]

Scotty72 wrote:

> How about stop micromanging their lives and tell to go to the
> park and kick a ball, build a billy cart or something 'radical' like
> that.

Can't do that. There's the possibility then that they would mix with kids who aren't of the same social class, race, gender, religion etc. Hey, they might even catch liberal ideas.

Much better to take them to private school, private sports, private church, private tutoring etc, so they only ever see other WASPs.

Cheers,

Suzy (went to public schools, and would send her kids to public school too)

 

[scotty72]

Oh,

What utter B-S. With sensationalist skills like that, you should get a job at Today Tonight.

You know that the overwhelming majority of child abuse is by someone within the family's circle of trust (uncle, scout leader, step father etc.)

The chances of being randomly snatched off the street are probably as high as being struck by lightning whilst being eaten by a shark.

dave wrote:
> Funnily enough while the murder rate has remained almost static in
> australia since 1880 you wont find a single parent who doesnt think the
> world is a far more dangerous place than when they were kids. It isnt.
> The romans had serial killers.

Here is a little statistical game to play. Assume that the number of
attacks on children by strangers (per capita) has remained pretty
constant over the last thirty years. Assume that 90% of parents
in the '70s let their kids wander about the streets unsupervised.
Assume that only 10% of parents now let their kids out. So,
there are 1/9 as many kids on the street per abuser as there
were then, and a child on the street now is 9 times as likely to
be abused as 30 years ago.

I used to walk 1km to school, on my own, at the age of 6. There
is absolutely no way I would let my kids do this now. Maybe the
risks are worse, or maybe I am more sensitised, I don't know.
Back in the 70's most cars didn't have seatbelts in the back,
and there was no such thing as a baby capsule. Drink driving
was more a sport than a crime. Maybe we are just more careful now?

 

[scotty72]

This is so full of shite...

It is not a problem of teachers being attracted anywhere (esp by money) as there is little demonstrable difference.

What is different is A) the resources available to the kids and b) the discipline able to be enforced upon the kids

Your idea that government abolish funding to the privates is as stupid as it is destructive to the public system. A kid in a government school gets at least twice the subsidy (all govts) that a private school kid gets. If you force all those private school kids into the public system, them the public system would collapse - TOMORROW. Do you really think that govt would suddenly come up with the extra 100s of millions that these newly public kids would be entitled to, new classrooms would be whipped up with a click of the fingers.

Then there is the ethical issue. My kid goes to a private school (we cycle down and back every day - bar rain). Are you suggesting that she is less deserving of taxpayer resources than your child? Is your child more important than mine - will you look her in the eye and tell her that the people think she is unworthy of society's help? If so, we shall need to have words.

Also, I am my wife pay huge taxes. So if we put into the system, are we not entitled to expect the benefits afforded to taxpayers? Of course we are.

We are not rich. We choose to put as many resources into our kid's education as we can. We don't drink, smoke or gamble or go on overseas trips. My daughter doesn't have an Ipod, TV in her room, designer clothes etc. WE SAVE.... Should a parent who does do these things complain that they can't afford schooling. Or should child welfare come and charge them with neglect?

It annoys me that people who sponge off a public school (refusing to pay even the small govt school fees) complain about the private system that actually props them up.

BY THE WAY

I attended a govt school (in the Cabramatta area)

I am currently a govt HIGH school teacher - so I have a fair idea.


DON'T punish parents who sacrifice for their kids.

Punish those who see their kids as a liability rather than an asset (bloody kids, can't afford me smoke now)

Scotty

****** off

You're assuming that money will resolve the problem. It will in the long
term, but only if the good teachers can be attracted to the public
system. In the short term, it'll make diddly squat difference,
especially if only one person does it.

What we *need* is for the government to retract the funding from private
schools (especially Catholic schools), and put it into public education.
Such a move would be political suicide, though, alas ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[Donga]

LotteBum wrote:
><

I'm happy to chat about it with you on a bike ride some time Lotte.

It's intriguing the opinions people hold on how others should and do
spend their money. Would I have got the same reactions if I spent money
on house renovations, white goods especially really big TVs, cars,
skiing trips? Either way, it's all personally directed. Not too much
consideration of the effects of rising petrol prices on all sorts of
folk.

Donga

 

[[email protected]]

scotty72 wrote:
> It is not a problem of teachers being attracted anywhere (esp by
> money) as there is little demonstrable difference.
>
> What is different is A) the resources available to the kids and b)
> the discipline able to be enforced upon the kids

Absolutely.

My wife is doing her masters in teaching at the moment, and the
top graduates do tend to go to the top private schools. Pay is a
little better, but more importantly they are better resourced
and most importantly they get better support from the school and
the parents. They are able to do their job, instead of spending
most of their time on crowd control. These are things that could
be fixed in state schools. It is not just money.

> I am currently a govt HIGH school teacher - so I have a fair idea.

I know a lot of teachers in the state system. Great people, but they
will tell you straight that the system is going to hell in a handcart.
That is why I put my kids into private schools, although it is
bleeding me white.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:

> The chances of being randomly snatched off the street are probably as
> high as being struck by lightning whilst being eaten by a shark.

That would upset the shark.

theo

 

[TimC]

On 2006-08-17, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> This is so full of shite...
>
> It is not a problem of teachers being attracted anywhere (esp by
> money) as there is little demonstrable difference.
>
> What is different is A) the resources available to the kids and b)
> the discipline able to be enforced upon the kids
>
> Your idea that government abolish funding to the privates is as stupid
> as it is destructive to the public system. A kid in a government school
> gets at least twice the subsidy (all govts) that a private school kid
> gets. If you force all those private school kids into the public
> system, them the public system would collapse - TOMORROW. Do you really
> think that govt would suddenly come up with the extra 100s of millions
> that these newly public kids would be entitled to, new classrooms would
> be whipped up with a click of the fingers.

Yes, it would collapse if students were to suddenly move into the
public system -- the public system has been under neglect for a couple
of decades now.

If more students went into the public system, and those who could
afford to pay more, were forced to pay more, then it wouldn't be in so
much neglect.

> Then there is the ethical issue. My kid goes to a private school (we
> cycle down and back every day - bar rain). Are you suggesting that she
> is less deserving of taxpayer resources than your child? Is your child
> more important than mine - will you look her in the eye and tell her
> that the people think she is unworthy of society's help? If so, we
> shall need to have words.

Hey, it's your choice to send her to a school that requires lots of
fees. You're free to send her to a "lesser" school. Then she'll get
twice the government spending, if that's what you care about!
Brilliant, isn't it?

> Also, I am my wife pay huge taxes. So if we put into the system, are
> we not entitled to expect the benefits afforded to taxpayers? Of course
> we are.
>
> We are not rich. We choose to put as many resources into our kid's
> education as we can.

OK, so why do you think your child is more worthy of a good education
than a child whose parents or single parent have no money, and are
just living day to day? Parents who can't afford to put *any* money
in? Those who don't have the luxury of having their own home, been
renting all their lives. Too old and unskilled to get a job where
they aren't completely exploited? Fall through the cracks of social
welfare, because hey, they've got a casual job that employs them for a
day a week - thus they are employed!!11!elvenee! People don't put
themselves in that situation by choice, so why should their children
have to suffer the propogation of their poverty? If all children had
the same access to schooling (and tutoring, and access to sport, and
....) then

1) You don't get so much propogation of poverty from parents to child
2) If the influential rich voters' children have to go to the same
school as those of people who can't afford anything other than the
public system, then the public system will be fixed up a lot quicker
(it's harder to ignore voters when they are giving party contributions
and own stock in companies that effectively control the government of
the day).

> It annoys me that people who sponge off a public school (refusing to
> pay even the small govt school fees) complain about the private system
> that actually props them up.

Props them up? How's that work? You have a pot of money. 2/3 of
that pot go to the public system. 1/3 go to the private system. The
private system also get an influx of money from their users fees.

That extra 1/3 of money that would otherwise be available? Not going
to the public system, oh no. That large amount of money that the
private users can demonstrably afford (if they couldn't, they'd fall
back to the public system), also don't go to the public system.

How's that propping up? Looks like taking away to me. Let me
demonstrate again. Those who can afford proportionally higher amounts
of their income to be directed to non-essential day to day living
expenses (roofs, walls, food, etc), direct their money to the private
system instead. What's left, the money of those who can't afford
anything extra, the measly dollars that the state governments
currently put in, goes into the public system. And you wonder why
it's falling apart?

Just because people like you didn't want their preciousness to mix
with the lesser aspects of society, those who belong to a lower social
class?

> DON'T punish parents who sacrifice for their kids.

Sacrafice by sending them to schools that the rest of us go to --
those of us in lower socio economic groups. Then put your money into
the public system, and watch as it grows!

> Punish those who see their kids as a liability rather than an asset
> (bloody kids, can't afford me smoke now)

Absolutely. Figures I heard yesterday that 17% of pregnant women
smoke. But 40% of young unwanted pregnant women smoke. Evidentally,
if you're stupid enough to smoke (particularly while pregnant), then
you're stupid enough to get yourself into an unwanted pregnancy.

--
TimC
"How much caffeine do you consume on a daily basis?"
"Dependink on how you mean? Liquid, solid or gas? " -- Pitr/User Friendly

 

[[email protected]]

scotty72 wrote:
> You know that the overwhelming majority of child abuse is by someone
> within the family's circle of trust (uncle, scout leader, step father
> etc.)

Our circle of trust is very small

> The chances of being randomly snatched off the street are probably as
> high as being struck by lightning whilst being eaten by a shark.

Probably. Point is that the risk has increased. I am just making a
counter argument to the point that violent crime has not increased
in the past few decades, which is certainly true.

I think it is the horror of these crimes, rather than the statistical
risk, that causes parents to overcompensate.

Meanwhile I don't let my 7 and 9 year olds go any further than the
end of our (cul-de-sac) street alone. Maybe I am stunting their
development. My 9 yo daughter would certainly agree.

obcycling:

I do let my kids ride their bikes in our street. I would like them
to be able to ride to school, which is less than a km away, but
that would involve crossing North Lake Rd which is 4 lanes in a
nominal 70 zone, although traffic consistently speeds along
here and for some reason regularly runs the lights. I have seen
some nasty accidents, and we even got to see a dead motorcyclist
a few months ago. This intersection is about 20m from the
school gate. I wonder what it would take to get pedestrian
lights installed? Maybe a redlight camera while we are at it.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

dave wrote:

> On that front I found out. (From a guzzi owner who shall remain
> nameless) that vmoto is an oz company. And their new retro 125
> scooter arrives now. And one of their over scooters with remote
> starting and other goodies costs just under 3 K and released in
> sectember last year was supposedly the best selling scooter in Oz.

I believe the scooter market grew by 30 something % last year, after growing
by 70% the previous year.

> Now its interesting that a couple of people at work are talking about
> these. But the
> people talking about the things are the big mercedes owners at work
> who would never own a pushbike or a motorbike. And that is a major
> major culture change.

My son and his wife have a Mercedes each. He has an SLK350, she has an ML320
diesel. They both get 10 l/100kms, compared to the new commodore which is
advertised to get 12 l/100kms. They have a VMoto scooter she uses to go to
thew local Gym and they have two bicycles and a kiddie trailer.

Theo