Buffy (in case you didn’t
Here are some highlights.
Michael is in the enviable position (in that I envy him) of having watched the series when it was first on while I am very much a Johnny-come-lately. Not that it matters much - we both love the show - as you may be able to tell.
Warning: there be spoilers. Though I guess anyone who hasn’t watched it yet probably never will.
A few years later he removes the bales. The government demands the building's demolition. Bastards(2). He may get away with it. Let's hope he does.
1. Actually, I don't have to wonder as there's a photo of the straw-bale castle accompanying the article.
2. As far as I am concerned they shouldn't be able to. See Against Planning. Also see the Filing Cabinet page on Planning.
Looking for root causes he says:
For four decades now, we have been living in a test tube while the liberals conduct a huge social experiment with our country.Which is true enough. Whether it is the whole truth is another matter. I suspect that (as Brian says) the welfare state has a lot to do with it.
Many readers will have seen the reports on the news yesterday about the banning of good, old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs and their replacement with these new-fangled, all-the-mercury-you-can-eat low-energy ones.
But, as Philip Stott points out3 there’s more to it than that:
- They can’t be used with all sorts of light fittings
- There are all sorts of people who won’t be able to use them
- Councils don’t know how to dispose of them1
- In terms of life-cycle costs they may not even reduce energy consumption2
- This all comes from the EU
1. So, how come they can deal with traditional fluorescent tubes then?
2. Mind you, if we go all-nuclear then this won’t be a problem. But then, why ban incandescent bulbs at all? Lobbying perhaps?
3. On Apple’s evil blogging system