less cars : roll on $2 per litre

wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a 20 storey apartment block
from the 1850s.

When did they start using concrete in tall building construction?
I believe the practical/economic height was limited by the compression
strength of bricks.

dave wrote:

As I said in another thread. 2 13 yo kids camping out of a sailing
dinghy on the shores of a lake and shooting bunnies for the hols would
probably get dad charged with neglect these days. I so miss my dad.

Where is the lake that you could do that this day?

I once had opposition from parents against their 15 year old walking 500
metres to the local shops.

dave wrote:

Well the statistics are fudgy.

Especially since they had very little idea of the population. Ship loads
of people arriving (and leaving) all the time and no one keeping tally.

alison_b wrote:

I also grew up in a time and place where heading off with my friends
camping wasn't a worry - but these days I hear the local police enforce
restrictions about under-aged kids driving the paddock ute on the
road...

Especially with guns visible {:-).

Random Data wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:48:12 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:


I grew vegies for a while, but various things led to the silverbeet being
neglected. I didn't realise they could grow 8 foot tall!


I'd offer to help, but the chainsaw's too expensive to run at $1.50/l

36" bushsaw beats a chain saw most days {:-) (unless it is real railway
sleepers).

Stuart Lamble wrote:

Yes, *now* they are. That's not to say that they have to be that way,
and if the cost of transport keeps going the way it has been, they would
(eventually) become the major producer. Large-scale centralised
production is not a long-term viable strategy.

Depends on where you are growing them. You forget that "close
production" has to compete with city prices for land".

In truth, the cost of production is actually a minor part of a lot of
foodstuffs because of the economies of scale. The major problem really
has been (for at least 30 years) having someone who will buy them.

The real problem with massive production is disasters, as happened with
bananas being too centralised.

Terryc wrote:
Travis wrote:

The subject of tarrifs etc is another perpetual "debate" which
economists figured out long ago, but every generation screws up anew.

Lol, rest of philosophical rant clipped.
You obviously know nothing about the economics of modern computer chip
production, because if you did, you would understand why everything you
wrote is just a blind drivel from an indoctrinated fool.

Thankyou for this erudite explanation of the flaws in economic theory,
but for the rest of us perhaps you could give a little more detail.
How does modern computer chip production disprove the basic principles
of economics?

Travis

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 00:30:29 +1000
Terryc wrote:
wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a 20 storey apartment block
from the 1850s.

When did they start using concrete in tall building construction?
I believe the practical/economic height was limited by the compression
strength of bricks.

Didn't start building tall things till the early 1900s, perhaps even
1920s? The big buildings in the US date from around then.

That's when they discovered things like the air movement - a tall
building has a fair old convection effect, hence rotating doors.

I suspect the invention of the elevator had something to do with it
too, but that's older than very tall buildings.

Zebee

Random Data Wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:28:37 -0700, brucef wrote:

Education is a state responsibility.

Funding for education is Federal, administration is State. So
basically
both ends blame each other, and the schools get screwed.

--
Dave Hughes |
Brooker's Law: "The wackier the project, the easier it is to fund."WRONG!!!

Vast majority of school education funds are STATE.

Fed gov tops up - incresingly putting funds in as a way of trying to
wrestle control...


--
scotty72

Travis wrote:
Terryc wrote:

Travis wrote:


The subject of tarrifs etc is another perpetual "debate" which
economists figured out long ago, but every generation screws up anew.

Lol, rest of philosophical rant clipped.
You obviously know nothing about the economics of modern computer chip
production, because if you did, you would understand why everything you
wrote is just a blind drivel from an indoctrinated fool.


Thankyou for this erudite explanation of the flaws in economic theory,
but for the rest of us perhaps you could give a little more detail.
How does modern computer chip production disprove the basic principles
of economics?

Your might like to find that out yourself. Then you will appreciate the
information. Easy to find. Just broaden your reading.
Most advertising also disproves your "basic principles of economics"
As I said, economics is just a philosophy. It has no practical exampes
of ever working. Everytime someone trots a suppssed example of
successfull appicaltion of the principles of economic theory, someone
else points out political or other conditions/forces that were equally
as responsible.

Travis