|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2013 4:27:13 GMT -5
In terms of public transport services, Thief row could yet expand! Even if ahinton did not make the extraordinary assumption here in ' The Third' that no money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services Is this meant to be a deliberate wind-up? I have made no such assumption and it would be an absurd one whoever did make it! I do not wish to have to repeat that again! England has lost the Ashes That's nothing; some people appear to have lost the plot! Stephen Hawking once wrote that he did not think the human race would survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. Like Stephen, I am an optimist, ahinton. We will reach out to the stars! Enjoy your optimism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 5:13:27 GMT -5
If we make the assumption that money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services, what about the sea?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 15, 2013 5:16:28 GMT -5
Meanwhile, ' The Sunday Times' leads this morning with some editorial comment on enough airport delays: we need take-off now. Anybody searching for a killer fact on Britain’s infrastructure failings need look no further than the saga over London’s airport capacity. In more than half a century, through public inquiries, official reports, 18 possible sites for a new airport in the southeast of England and an apparently endless debate, not a single new full-length runway has been built. It is obvious is it not that vertical take-off is the direction towards which endeavours should be directed. The run-way is a primitive concept. Rather like the "family" in that respect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 5:36:02 GMT -5
I suppose that it all depends where we are going, Gerard! If I am going to Australia, it may well be the case that a vertical take-off from London makes more sense. Flying in a low orbit, a rocket could theoretically reach the other side of the Earth more quickly and more cheaply than even the fastest Qantas, for example! If I am going south of the river, in contrast, it may make more sense to stay horizontal! One problem I see is with the landing. I could land in the sea, or in the case of the Thames, the river/estuary, but if I am to land safely, it probably makes sense to land horizontally. I could then clamber up the foreshore on to the South Bank. I could see some Shakespeare at the Globe, for example, although at this time of year, I might have to choose something more modern elsewhere! Tate Modern - BMW Tate Live 2013As for the family, in evolutionary terms, many organisms have evolved family structures, including, for example, social insects. I would not necessarily class such structures as primitive, however. The principal advantage of a family is that family members can help one another out. When I was young and I got into trouble, I used to ask my mother for help, on occasion, and she used to sort things out! There are other structures which could replace the family, of course, Sydney, but few would be as formidable as kleines c's mother!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2013 6:40:24 GMT -5
If we make the assumption that money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services, what about the sea? I don't think that money is required to run the sea itself. That said, it is certainly required to put up offshore wind farms, oil rigs and the like as well as to run vessels on it. Oh, and by the way, you can't put on performances of Vaughan Williams's Sea Symphony, Debussy's La Mer or Bridge's The Sea for nothing...
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2013 6:46:31 GMT -5
Meanwhile, ' The Sunday Times' leads this morning with some editorial comment on enough airport delays: we need take-off now. Anybody searching for a killer fact on Britain’s infrastructure failings need look no further than the saga over London’s airport capacity. In more than half a century, through public inquiries, official reports, 18 possible sites for a new airport in the southeast of England and an apparently endless debate, not a single new full-length runway has been built. It is obvious is it not that vertical take-off is the direction towards which endeavours should be directed. The run-way is a primitive concept. Rather like the "family" in that respect. Rubbish about the family but good sense about the runway apart from the redundant hyphen therein (superfluous hyphens on runways can be dangerous by interfering with take-off); there's a long way to go, however, before aircraft of sufficient size to accommodate payloads running into several hundreds will be able to take off vertically, just as it will be a long time before they can run on solar energy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 7:46:22 GMT -5
So ahinton's extraordinary assumption that money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services is wrong!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 8:44:11 GMT -5
In small societies, there is not really a great need for money, because you can generally trust your family, friends and neighbours to return any labour, food or goods in kind. The need for money, as we understand it, grows when you are dealing with strangers you may never see again and cannot necessarily trust. Of course, Gerard, if you do not deal with strangers, there may be no need for money at all! And there may be no need to fly anywhere! No Qantas; no problem! We have finally found the solution! We are all most grateful to the member for his inspirational exegesis. Building upon that base, may I set out a proposal for the next five hundred years of social life? 1) All men to be housed in a separate institution. You may call it a "monastery" if you care to, but a) there will be no particular emphasis on religion, and b) it will have all modern conveniences. Self-sufficient, no call for "money." 2) All women to be housed in a separate institution. You may call it a "nunnery" or a "convent," but a) there will be no particular emphasis on religion, and b) its facilities will have all modern conveniences. Self-sufficient, no call for "money." 3) As in the Middle Ages, the inhabitants of the monastery will be strictly segregated from the inhabitants of the nunnery, and vice versa; with one tremendous exception: 4) Once a year, on May-day, a festival or carnival will take place - the "Great Mingling of the Maypole." Stonehenge and similar ancient sites will be preferred locations. 5) Of course under this system there will no longer be "families," but throughout the year, children will be permitted to wander at will, visiting monasteries or nunneries according to their whim. Once they reach a height of five feet eight they will be deemed to be adults, and henceforward segrated as described above. Now the thing about all this is that it is not new. It was tried and tested for centuries in the Middle Ages. Given the present-day depredations of "business-men," it is high time to go back to monasteries and convents in a big way is it not?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2013 10:00:16 GMT -5
So ahinton's extraordinary assumption that money is of necessity required to enable the running of public transport services is wrong! Do you enjoy sitting on both sides of a fence which appears to be non-existent outside of your own seeminly vacillating imagination? Good grief!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2013 10:02:59 GMT -5
In small societies, there is not really a great need for money, because you can generally trust your family, friends and neighbours to return any labour, food or goods in kind. The need for money, as we understand it, grows when you are dealing with strangers you may never see again and cannot necessarily trust. Of course, Gerard, if you do not deal with strangers, there may be no need for money at all! And there may be no need to fly anywhere! No Qantas; no problem! We have finally found the solution! We are all most grateful to the member for his inspirational exegesis. Building upon that base, may I set out a proposal for the next five hundred years of social life? 1) All men to be housed in a separate institution. You may call it a "monastery" if you care to, but a) there will be no particular emphasis on religion, and b) it will have all modern conveniences. Self-sufficient, no call for "money." 2) All women to be housed in a separate institution. You may call it a "nunnery" or a "convent," but a) there will be no particular emphasis on religion, and b) its facilities will have all modern conveniences. Self-sufficient, no call for "money." 3) As in the Middle Ages, the inhabitants of the monastery will be strictly segregated from the inhabitants of the nunnery, and vice versa; with one tremendous exception: 4) Once a year, on May-day, a festival or carnival will take place - the "Great Mingling of the Maypole." Stonehenge and similar ancient sites will be preferred locations. 5) Of course under this system there will no longer be "families," but throughout the year, children will be permitted to wander at will, visiting monasteries or nunneries according to their whim. Once they reach a height of five feet eight they will be deemed to be adults, and henceforward segrated as described above. Now the thing about all this is that it is not new. It was tried and tested for centuries in the Middle Ages. Given the present-day depredations of "business-men," it is high time to go back to monasteries and convents in a big way is it not? This might have considerable comedy value were it not so sad in its pleonastic absurdity; at least it would, if implemented, ensure the end of the human race within a century at the very outside and, were the best up with which humanity could come to be something along the lines of the above, that would surely be just as well! I'm begining to feel rather sorry for Qantas if its recent and current woes generate this kind of unthinking!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2013 12:58:45 GMT -5
. . . it would, if implemented, ensure the end of the human race within a century at the very outside . . . What, all eight billion of them? Surely not. And just from no longer having any coins to jangle in their pockets? Methinks Mr. H. underestimates the human race!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 15, 2013 14:03:44 GMT -5
. . . it would, if implemented, ensure the end of the human race within a century at the very outside . . . What, all eight billion of them? I don't think that there are quite that many yet, but certainly most of those that there are, yes. And just from no longer having any coins to jangle in their pockets? Not just from that, no, but without business activity of one kind and another it is hard to see how most people would survive for long. Perhaps you could tell us how if you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 11:31:21 GMT -5
If I may address your final question directly, ahinton: " ... Do you enjoy sitting on both sides of a fence which appears to be non-existent outside of your own seeminly vacillating imagination? Good grief!" There is no fence, ahinton! As for Sydney, it seems to me to be a retrograde step to separate the sexes. There is currently a debate about gender segregation in university, so this particular proposal is currently making news: Channel 4 News - Gender segregation: protests against university guidelinesOf course, if men and women wish to separate themselves from one another, I have no objection. There are plenty of situations in which this makes sense. What I do object to is the idea that men and women should have no choice in the matter! There should be no fence, Sydney!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 18, 2013 16:46:10 GMT -5
If I may address your final question directly, ahinton: " ... Do you enjoy sitting on both sides of a fence which appears to be non-existent outside of your own seeminly vacillating imagination? Good grief!" There is no fence, ahinton! Who claims that to be tha case and on what specific grounds? As for Sydney, it seems to me to be a retrograde step to separate the sexes. There is currently a debate about gender segregation in university, so this particular proposal is currently making news: Channel 4 News - Gender segregation: protests against university guidelinesOf course, if men and women wish to separate themselves from one another, I have no objection. There are plenty of situations in which this makes sense. What I do object to is the idea that men and women should have no choice in the matter! There should be no fence, Sydney! No fence here, certainly - and as the notion that such segregation if ostensibly "agreed" by each side thereof is somehow socially acceptable is part of what fuelled the history of apartheid in South Africa, it should surely now be donounced for what it was and is and for what its effects have demonstrably been?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 3:26:31 GMT -5
If I may address both your final questions directly, ahinton: a. Who claims that to be the case and on what specific grounds? There are no specific grounds! b. No fence here, certainly - and as the notion that such segregation if ostensibly "agreed" by each side thereof is somehow socially acceptable is part of what fuelled the history of apartheid in South Africa, it should surely now be donounced for what it was and is and for what its effects have demonstrably been? What I do object to is the idea that anyone should have no choice in the matter! There should be no fence, ahinton!
|
|