Wow, it's happening.
Forgive my cynicism, but where are they going to rehouse all these political pawns that have been uprooted ?
My guess would be the West Bank ...........
For all Jews that think that their occupying lands are theirs by right , please look at Northern Ireland and the mess we got into there and how long the problems lasted.
Monday, August 22, 2005
plane noise
I've always thought that the 57 dBA noise limit on overhead planes referred to the plane not giving a 57dBA noise on the ground, and where it exceeded that, then compensation was required to the residents below.
Think I was little simplistic in my assumption there, especially as I've often heard planes at far, far above that level , certainly in Fulham and thereabouts [and just assumed they were flouting the regulations].
The noise level is averaged over a year to ascertain the plane noise level [ I have no idea how they subtract from 'natural sounds' [car noise, fireworks, birdsong etc]
Noise measurements are NOT linear- and the pressure [noise level] doubles every 3 dB.
A noise of 57dBA is about the same as in an office, ie pretty damn quiet and you certainly wouldnt object at that level. I realise that this is now out of date, but Concorde is equivalent to 120 747's in noise terms [ no wonder some countries banned it from overflying ! ].
IMO, this is an absolute disgrace and should be changed say to overhead noise being no more than 70 dB at any time or something like taking into account the frequency of overflys.
Maybe this would be too labour intensive to do, in which case something like 66dB averaged over a peak hour may be easier?
Think I was little simplistic in my assumption there, especially as I've often heard planes at far, far above that level , certainly in Fulham and thereabouts [and just assumed they were flouting the regulations].
The noise level is averaged over a year to ascertain the plane noise level [ I have no idea how they subtract from 'natural sounds' [car noise, fireworks, birdsong etc]
Noise measurements are NOT linear- and the pressure [noise level] doubles every 3 dB.
A noise of 57dBA is about the same as in an office, ie pretty damn quiet and you certainly wouldnt object at that level. I realise that this is now out of date, but Concorde is equivalent to 120 747's in noise terms [ no wonder some countries banned it from overflying ! ].
IMO, this is an absolute disgrace and should be changed say to overhead noise being no more than 70 dB at any time or something like taking into account the frequency of overflys.
Maybe this would be too labour intensive to do, in which case something like 66dB averaged over a peak hour may be easier?
Monday, August 15, 2005
wow Lib dems speak with straight tongue
today a Lib Dem MP? said we should legalise all drugs including heroin !
At first sight- shock, horror !
Think about it, impersonally
there is and always will be , a demand for drugs.
at present this demand is fulfilled by drug dealers. As it is against the law, this demand is reduced, both by people enot wanting to be outside the law [ zilch almost] and also by supply/demand curve, ie the worlds' governments reducing the supply thereby increasing the price [that's all that can happen].
I was buying cannabis in 1975 at £120/ oz (28 grammes). Today the price for top quality stuff [much stronger] is about £100/oz .
In purely economic terms, the worlds' govts have failed totally and they should admit it and face reality.
I do not take nor have ever taken many other recreational drugs so I'm not *too* biased, in fact I reckon heroin is f'ing stupid to use as is coke etc.
BUT..... I think we should legalise ALL drugs and tax them , and use some of the money derived from them to educate all people who may want to use them, so they know the dangers associated with each drug physiological,mentaly and addictiveness.
The way to cut down on drug useage is via knowledge not via criminality
I personally reckon that drug/sex whatever legislation is partly driven by the politicians hope that their kids won't start ..... partial proof : the age of consent seems to drop by 2 years/ generation- ie they reckon that cos they started having sex 2 years before they should, it should be legal for their offspring.
At first sight- shock, horror !
Think about it, impersonally
there is and always will be , a demand for drugs.
at present this demand is fulfilled by drug dealers. As it is against the law, this demand is reduced, both by people enot wanting to be outside the law [ zilch almost] and also by supply/demand curve, ie the worlds' governments reducing the supply thereby increasing the price [that's all that can happen].
I was buying cannabis in 1975 at £120/ oz (28 grammes). Today the price for top quality stuff [much stronger] is about £100/oz .
In purely economic terms, the worlds' govts have failed totally and they should admit it and face reality.
I do not take nor have ever taken many other recreational drugs so I'm not *too* biased, in fact I reckon heroin is f'ing stupid to use as is coke etc.
BUT..... I think we should legalise ALL drugs and tax them , and use some of the money derived from them to educate all people who may want to use them, so they know the dangers associated with each drug physiological,mentaly and addictiveness.
The way to cut down on drug useage is via knowledge not via criminality
I personally reckon that drug/sex whatever legislation is partly driven by the politicians hope that their kids won't start ..... partial proof : the age of consent seems to drop by 2 years/ generation- ie they reckon that cos they started having sex 2 years before they should, it should be legal for their offspring.
Friday, August 12, 2005
longer drinking hours in UK pubs
The Government is to allow longer opening hours in UK pubs- in part to cut down on violence as people won't be thrown onto the streets at the same time anymore.
Finally, it seems, everyone is up in arms as they worry about more drunken violence etc due to more alcohol consumed.
Let us look at the facts.
1. People who want to get drunk in pubs, most can achieve this aim either just through pubs or from night clubs if they need to.
Those few who cannot do that, may drink more.
In a worst case scenario, the other 99.9% of this set will continue to achieve their aim, but will presumably take a little longer [ go out later maybe?]
Thus the Bill must achieve it's primary aim , even if it doesn't achieve it's secondary ideal, to foster *Continental style* boozing.
It is a Law that cannot be abused [ except for more drinking during the week- and increasing throwing sickies maybe- but people can stil do that under present legislation ] and should be welcomed as a superb piece of lateral thinking .
I commend it to he House, and please could its' critics think about it.....
Finally, it seems, everyone is up in arms as they worry about more drunken violence etc due to more alcohol consumed.
Let us look at the facts.
1. People who want to get drunk in pubs, most can achieve this aim either just through pubs or from night clubs if they need to.
Those few who cannot do that, may drink more.
In a worst case scenario, the other 99.9% of this set will continue to achieve their aim, but will presumably take a little longer [ go out later maybe?]
Thus the Bill must achieve it's primary aim , even if it doesn't achieve it's secondary ideal, to foster *Continental style* boozing.
It is a Law that cannot be abused [ except for more drinking during the week- and increasing throwing sickies maybe- but people can stil do that under present legislation ] and should be welcomed as a superb piece of lateral thinking .
I commend it to he House, and please could its' critics think about it.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)