Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Now if the people who own the country started charging for te water they
supply, and all the carbon they sequester, and all the oxygen they
produce, and started charging for all the landfill..the countryside
would be a very rich place.

So people who live in the countryside don't eat, don't breathe, don't
consume and don't produce any rubbish.

Interesting theory, but rubbish!

Look at the relative densities of population, and you will see that the
countryside is and effective water source and **** sink. with respect to
its population.

I suppose you think milk grows in bottles as well?


If it is so unpleasant living in the countryside, with people giving up
"their" air and water for city folk, as well as taking in their rubbish,
there is an unarguable case for moving to the city.

Added bonus: reliable high speed broadband!

Problem solved. Bleating stops.

It isn't unpleasant, but we do get irked with being told we are net
consumers by city folk, when the reality is the exact reverse.

Peter Scott wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"robgraham" wrote in message
...

8

Having read through this thread, I have been surprised at the
aggression of the responders. This NG is normally extremely tactful
in its comments to OP's but in this case I found many of the answers
near enough offensive.

My assumption is that this is a demonstration of the disconnect that
is occurring in UK society between those living in urban and rural
environments, with the urbanites all too often classifying anyone
living outside the towns and cities as winging scroungers.

I would suggest that all of you who have contributed to this thread
should do as I have done and re-read all the responses and you will
see the attitude that is coming across.

All I can say is shame on you all.

His whinge is in the same class as the idiots that buy houses on flood
planes and then demand a flood control scheme at great expense to
everyone else who wouldn't have bought a hose that floods in the first
place.

All his letter says is "It costs more to supply broadband to me but
its slower and I want a bigger subsidy and sod the others".

Rob

Wrong. I said that rural areas subsidise the cities and this is one way
that this could be repaid.

wrong, because its the other way around.

Hugo Nebula wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:29:34 +0000, a certain chimpanzee, TheOldFellow
randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

The point is that even if we wished to pay more to get the same service
as the poor townies, granting that the costs are higher, we can't 'cos
the infrastructure can't support it.

I live in a suburb of one of the 'core cities'; we have high crime
levels and the insurance premiums to prove it; I live less than a mile
from a motorway junction yet it takes ten minutes to get onto it in
the mornings; the bus takes forty minutes to get into the city centre.
On top of that, my broadband connection struggles to get 2Mbps. It
sounds like I need to move to the countryside to get better
communications and a lower cost of living.

Yup.

We live a mile from the village shop and petrol station. And the surgery.

Our local hairdresser comes by car and cuts our hair for a fiver.

I get 3Mbps broadband.

It took a few years to get the exchange enabled though.

To 'enjoy' city life I have to drive 25 miles, to get ripped of fo
parking, and spend the last 20 minutes of the 40 minute journey, getting
from the outskirts to the center. Breaking my suspension on speed humps
all the way.

I pay just as much council/income tax as the city, but get zero back for
it.

Fortunately. I don't want speed humps, chicanes, street lights, gay day
centers, or anything like that.

The water that falls on thelad here is ultimatley drunk my teh good
citizens of teh downstream towns. We don't charge them for it.
The barley and wheat that is grown here comes the milk, the beer, and
the vodkas drunk by those cities. They don't even pay enough to make it
profitable.

I can buy a lamb or a half pig, butchered for £100. In the supermarket
it tastes of nothing, and cost 3-4 times as much.

But it does come wrapped in plastic waste.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"robgraham" wrote in message
...

8

Having read through this thread, I have been surprised at the
aggression of the responders. This NG is normally extremely tactful
in its comments to OP's but in this case I found many of the answers
near enough offensive.

My assumption is that this is a demonstration of the disconnect that
is occurring in UK society between those living in urban and rural
environments, with the urbanites all too often classifying anyone
living outside the towns and cities as winging scroungers.

I would suggest that all of you who have contributed to this thread
should do as I have done and re-read all the responses and you will
see the attitude that is coming across.

All I can say is shame on you all.

His whinge is in the same class as the idiots that buy houses on
flood planes and then demand a flood control scheme at great expense
to everyone else who wouldn't have bought a hose that floods in the
first place.

All his letter says is "It costs more to supply broadband to me but
its slower and I want a bigger subsidy and sod the others".

Rob

Wrong. I said that rural areas subsidise the cities and this is one
way that this could be repaid.

wrong, because its the other way around.
Look at the figures (lower down I have linked to a document)

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
...


You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as there
wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Hee hee! So we're all woad-painted savages here are we? Just scratching,
and waiting with sagging, drooling jaws for civilisation to arrive from
the cities? I think not. What on earth makes you think that technological
development comes from cities?

It comes from having a big enough population to develop stuff.
You can't get a big population in rural surroundings.

If you want the facts remember it costs more to provide you with every
service.
That includes schools, transport, fire, police, ambulance, phones and
everything else you want to name.

That's odd because the actual spend on these services is lower in country
areas.

Not per person it isn't.

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as there
wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Sorry to add yet another comment but...

Someone just pointed out to me that the cities did not develop at all
until technological developments in the country enabled fewer people on
the farms to feed the growing city populations. So civilisation started in
the country (and some would say has remained there). Don't believe me,
just read a history book.

Why.
They don't agree with what you say.
After all we aren't talking about 2000 year old civilizations here, unless
you have evidence of broadband in the pyramids.

dennis@home wrote:


"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as
there wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Sorry to add yet another comment but...

Someone just pointed out to me that the cities did not develop at all
until technological developments in the country enabled fewer people
on the farms to feed the growing city populations. So civilisation
started in the country (and some would say has remained there). Don't
believe me, just read a history book.

Why.
They don't agree with what you say.
After all we aren't talking about 2000 year old civilizations here,
unless you have evidence of broadband in the pyramids.

This is trying to hit a moving target. One minute you are talking about
civilisation, then when you start losing the argument, you change the
subject back to broadband.

As I suggested, just take a look at page 8 of:
http://www.isitfair.co.uk/Reports/Pu...licFinance.pdf

This is a message near the bottom of this thread together with my comment.

I look at your arguments rather like listening to the co2 deniers or the
Victorian Punch cartoon of the man in the zoo standing next to a giraffe
saying 'there is no such animal'. As I said, read a history book about
what enabled the growth of cities. Particularly why they started to grow
exponentially after the introduction of better farming methods 200 years
ago.

Peter Scott

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:


"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as there
wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Sorry to add yet another comment but...

Someone just pointed out to me that the cities did not develop at all
until technological developments in the country enabled fewer people on
the farms to feed the growing city populations. So civilisation started
in the country (and some would say has remained there). Don't believe
me, just read a history book.

Why.
They don't agree with what you say.
After all we aren't talking about 2000 year old civilizations here,
unless you have evidence of broadband in the pyramids.

This is trying to hit a moving target. One minute you are talking about
civilisation, then when you start losing the argument, you change the
subject back to broadband.

I have not started to lose.
You are the one that states that the rural society is not subsidised by
cities.
However it costs more to provide the services to the rural parts and you
don't pay more.
That means you are subsidised more.
Its quit simple.


As I suggested, just take a look at page 8 of:
http://www.isitfair.co.uk/Reports/Pu...licFinance.pdf

I suggest you look at it as nowhere does it make any inference about rural
and city spending.
It talks about regional spending.
Maybe you think the SE is all city and the North west is all farms?

This is a message near the bottom of this thread together with my comment.

I look at your arguments rather like listening to the co2 deniers or the
Victorian Punch cartoon of the man in the zoo standing next to a giraffe
saying 'there is no such animal'. As I said, read a history book about
what enabled the growth of cities. Particularly why they started to grow
exponentially after the introduction of better farming methods 200 years
ago.

Again, what has that got to do with the argument?
Nobody has said that growing food is not required and farmers get paid to do
so.
All of the major advances have been made as the population grows and it
doesn't grow without cities.
You need a minimum population density for innovations to happen.
Even tractors were developed in the city.

As it happens I fail to see what your arguments are based on and you don't
appear to be able to state what.

Peter Scott wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as there
wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Sorry to add yet another comment but...

Someone just pointed out to me that the cities did not develop at all
until technological developments in the country enabled fewer people on
the farms to feed the growing city populations. So civilisation started
in the country (and some would say has remained there). Don't believe
me, just read a history book.

Peter Scott
cities were always parasitic on the countryside until a brief period in
industrial times when they actually manufactured something useful.

Now they are more or less open prisons for the uncivilised.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

You benefit from civilization.
There wouldn't be any broadband, etc if it weren't for cities as
there wouldn't be any civilization to develop them.

Sorry to add yet another comment but...

Someone just pointed out to me that the cities did not develop at all
until technological developments in the country enabled fewer people
on the farms to feed the growing city populations. So civilisation
started in the country (and some would say has remained there). Don't
believe me, just read a history book.

Peter Scott
cities were always parasitic on the countryside until a brief period in
industrial times when they actually manufactured something useful.

Now they are more or less open prisons for the uncivilised.

Oh at last! Someone who has a knowledge of history and is prepared to
look at evidence. Thank you Nat for your contribution.

I think that this correspondence had better close as it's impossible to
argue a case with someone who has a closed mind.

Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:

Oh at last! Someone who has a knowledge of history and is prepared to
look at evidence.


What you meant to say was that he is just as deluded as you. ;-)

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:33:13 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:

cities were always parasitic on the countryside until a brief period in
industrial times when they actually manufactured something useful.

Now they are more or less open prisons for the uncivilised.

Oh at last! Someone who has a knowledge of history and is prepared to
look at evidence. Thank you Nat for your contribution.

Quite agree, look back through history. Cities do not develop until
agriculture is productive enough to release people from food production to
do other things. If the countryside becomes unproductive, say due to a few
years drought, any cities supported by that countryside collapse as they
have no support and cannot support themselves.

This has not changed, but it appears that many people do not realise it.
Probably due to the global supply chains we have now and the false premise
that if one food source fails there are plenty of others to buy from. This
is not the case. When food becomes scarce the exporting countries will
feed their own populace first and export second. As was highlighted last
year.

The relationship between cities and countryside is a symbiosis but out of
cities or countryside the one that starts and ends any period with cities
is the countryside.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:19:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:41:43 UTC, wrote:

Why would lossy compression of images, which can reduce image file
size by a factor of say 8, make little difference?
Because most of them are lossily compressed already?

doesnt make any difference to the fact that one can greatly reduce
file size by further (lossy) compression


Why not replace all images with a line saying 'here used to be an image
here' and be done with it?

I used to when on dialup, but a lot of pages dont render acceptably if
you do that today.

If the page was designed properly this should not be a problem.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:19:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:41:43 UTC, wrote:

Why would lossy compression of images, which can reduce image file
size by a factor of say 8, make little difference?
Because most of them are lossily compressed already?
doesnt make any difference to the fact that one can greatly reduce
file size by further (lossy) compression

Why not replace all images with a line saying 'here used to be an image
here' and be done with it?
I used to when on dialup, but a lot of pages dont render acceptably if
you do that today.

If the page was designed properly this should not be a problem.


No, if the page were designed to be used that way, it wouldn't be.

'properly' is not a concept applicable to web page.

I.e. explain to me how to design a porno site for a blind person
'properly' ;-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I.e. explain to me how to design a porno site for a blind person
'properly' ;-)

oooh... aaahh... aaahh... AAAH!

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I.e. explain to me how to design a porno site for a blind person
'properly' ;-)

oooh... aaahh... aaahh... AAAH!

Andy
Actually how the hell do you make a website 'talk' other than use Flash?