Byrd of WV dead at 92
in [Design]
|
Prev: Archie
Next: Flexible Jumper operations
From: Tim Wescott on 29 Jun 2010 12:07 On 06/29/2010 05:50 AM, Jim Yanik wrote: > Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in > news:q5adnVNVssIP4bTRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: > >> On 06/28/2010 07:07 PM, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> On Jun 28, 4:36 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> On 06/28/2010 01:37 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in >>>>> news:y8WdnT0T99dLRrXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: >>>> >>>>>> On 06/28/2010 09:13 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:26 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:34:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> www.wvgazette.com/News/201006280099 >>>> >>>>>>>> Will the KKK furnish an honor guard? >>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>> >>>>>>> Doesn't exist anymore. But maybe we should bring it back to >>>>>>> round up liberals (and Californicators ;-) >>>> >>>>>> Check your assumptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK. >>>> >>>>>> There may be a local chapter near you, ready to welcome you with >>>>>> open arms. >>>> >>>>> if you value the Constitution and it's principles,"liberals" aka >>>>> "progressives",are the main threat to it and America. >>>> >>>> I think that one of my Libertarian friends put it best: Democrats >>>> and Republicans may disagree on which part of the constitution >>>> doesn't matter, but they both think that parts of it should be >>>> dispensed with, and neither of them, on getting into office, drag >>>> their feet on tearing up the parts that they feel get in the way. >>> >>> >>> The Constitution's a control system, brilliant, with various >>> feedbacks designed to keep government from railing. The designed >>> feedbacks have been defeated, and that's a BIG problem. The whole >>> original architecture was redundant, granular powers (the States), >>> and self- governing (as in "self-limiting," as well as the other >>> sense) and we've subverted that. >>> >>> You could say we've gone from an interactive "personal computer >>> model" of government to a batch-processing "mainframe model." >>> Economically that fails, inherently. >>> >>> >>>> Do you like the second amendment but not the fourth? Vote >>>> Republican! Value the fourth and fifth amendments? Vote Democrat! >>>> Value the whole damn constitution, especially the first amendment? >>>> Vote really carefully, because you don't have many allies in >>>> Washington. >>> >>> Amen on the "not many allies"--we're working on fixing that. >>> >>> But as to the amendments, the current administration is after all of >>> them. >>> >>> The 4th says you have the right to be secure in your papers and >>> effects, just not your medical records any more. >>> The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property without due >>> process of law, yet we just did. >>> The 1st says you have the right to free speech, but the House just >>> passed HR-5175 (the DISCLOSE Act), which is particularly designed to >>> silence the TEA Party movement. >>> >>> Really, despite the label, I don't think of these guys in power as >>> Democrats--they're something new. Something scary. >> >> Unless there's something new that I don't know about, the prez said >> "BP really ought to put a bazzilion dollars into escrow" and BP said >> "OK" -- i.e. BP caved before there was even an order to do anything. >> >> In fact, I recall reading late last week that there's a shareholder >> lawsuit brewing against BP precisely for doing that. >> >> And I'd be a lot less worried about the DISCLOSE act if it were >> even-handed between unions and corporations -- I'm not nearly as >> concerned about big unions vs. big corporations as I'm concerned about >> big anything vs. little ol' me. Big corporations are where innovation >> goes to die, big unions have no purpose without big corporations, and >> we'd all be better off if we didn't have these corporate entities >> (corporations _and_ unions) growing ever larger and taking over the >> world. >> >> The older I get the less far-fetched and paranoid I find the science >> fiction that posits a future world that's controlled by corporations, >> not governments. >> > > "corporations" are just groups of people. > Like Citizens United;they make no product,provide no services for sale,but > are a group of people who merged their funds to make a movie that was > blocked by the McCain-Feingold law. > > OTOH,unions are well-known for their violence and oppression,like SEIU. > you must not be very informed about today's unions. I find it interesting that any time I try to present a balanced view I'm immediately piled upon by wingers. Mostly right wingers these days, because the left wingers are more likely to just hang back and sneer to each other, but wingers from both sides none the less. With just one exception every friend of mine that I know has been in a union but isn't any more has been threatened with violence for working too hard. So you're quite wrong about what I know about unions and violence -- I guess since you haven't heard Rush or Glenn say something like what I said above that you can't believe that it could possibly be true, and since you've been listening to Glenn and Rush you feel that the only way to respond to sensible argument is to start flinging cow pies. I assume, then, that when you see old newsreels that show Pinkerton security personnel beating the hell out of strikers at Ford plants you have some smooth weasel words to blame everything on the union people? Those guys _deserved_ to be beaten until their bones broke? Please go into lengths on that, if you will. And it is, of course, impossible for you to believe that there could possibly be sin on both sides? Union people climb up from the depths of hell, but corporate management is just visiting earth from Heaven, spreading goodness and light while they're here? It's just totally impossible that _any_ time you get a bunch of people together in a closed group -- like a union or any other corporate body -- that the bad behavior will feed on bad behavior and just get worse and worse? And for your "just groups of people" -- well, what's a government but "just a group of people"? The Holocaust was "just" one "group of people" going after certain individuals in their midst. The recent financial meltdown was "just groups of people" who decided to stray from their stated purpose to make big bundles of money. The KKK whose existence Jim wants to deny is "just a group of people". Al Qaeda is "just a group of people". Ghengis Khan's Mongol hordes were "just groups of people". So you're right -- we shouldn't worry about international corporations with more money than any government any more than we should worry -- or should have worried -- about Al Qaeda, Nazi Germany, or the Mongol hordes. Thanks for straightening that out! -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Jun 2010 12:12 On Jun 28, 11:53 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > On 06/28/2010 07:07 PM, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > On Jun 28, 4:36 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > >> On 06/28/2010 01:37 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: > > >>> Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in > >>>news:y8WdnT0T99dLRrXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: > > >>>> On 06/28/2010 09:13 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:26 -0700, John Larkin > >>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:34:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > >>>>>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>www.wvgazette.com/News/201006280099 > > >>>>>> Will the KKK furnish an honor guard? > > >>>>>> John > > >>>>> Doesn't exist anymore. But maybe we should bring it back to round up > >>>>> liberals (and Californicators ;-) > > >>>> Check your assumptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK. > > >>>> There may be a local chapter near you, ready to welcome you with open > >>>> arms. > > >>> if you value the Constitution and it's principles,"liberals" aka > >>> "progressives",are the main threat to it and America. > > >> I think that one of my Libertarian friends put it best: Democrats and > >> Republicans may disagree on which part of the constitution doesn't > >> matter, but they both think that parts of it should be dispensed with, > >> and neither of them, on getting into office, drag their feet on tearing > >> up the parts that they feel get in the way. > > > The Constitution's a control system, brilliant, with various feedbacks > > designed to keep government from railing. The designed feedbacks have > > been defeated, and that's a BIG problem. The whole original > > architecture was redundant, granular powers (the States), and self- > > governing (as in "self-limiting," as well as the other sense) and > > we've subverted that. > > > You could say we've gone from an interactive "personal computer model" > > of government to a batch-processing "mainframe model." Economically > > that fails, inherently. > > >> Do you like the second amendment but not the fourth? Vote Republican! > >> Value the fourth and fifth amendments? Vote Democrat! Value the whole > >> damn constitution, especially the first amendment? Vote really > >> carefully, because you don't have many allies in Washington. > > > Amen on the "not many allies"--we're working on fixing that. > > > But as to the amendments, the current administration is after all of > > them. > > > The 4th says you have the right to be secure in your papers and > > effects, just not your medical records any more. > > The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property without due process > > of law, yet we just did. > > The 1st says you have the right to free speech, but the House just > > passed HR-5175 (the DISCLOSE Act), which is particularly designed to > > silence the TEA Party movement. > > > Really, despite the label, I don't think of these guys in power as > > Democrats--they're something new. Something scary. > > Unless there's something new that I don't know about, the prez said "BP > really ought to put a bazzilion dollars into escrow" and BP said "OK" -- > i.e. BP caved before there was even an order to do anything. > > In fact, I recall reading late last week that there's a shareholder > lawsuit brewing against BP precisely for doing that. They first accused BP criminally, when Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's Attorney General, announced opening a criminal investigation into BP. (That, BTW, is never announced--it's considered prejudicial and unethical to do so. There are lots of quotes from Mr. Holder saying exactly that.) Then they proceeded to bash BP, to berate and vilify them. And then they had a meeting. It's been widely reported and confirmed that in the meeting Joe Biden told BP "You've got no choice. If you don't do it, we'll force you." So, that's coercion, of the crudest, sort. > And I'd be a lot less worried about the DISCLOSE act if it were > even-handed between unions and corporations Your instincts are right. The fact that unions needed an exemption should tell you the DISCLOSE Act is a heavy burden, it's not just disclosure. As I wrote Joel, the people who wrote the bill are afraid of small corporations, esp. the Tea Party movement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html > -- I'm not nearly as > concerned about big unions vs. big corporations as I'm concerned about > big anything vs. little ol' me. Big corporations are where innovation > goes to die, big unions have no purpose without big corporations, and > we'd all be better off if we didn't have these corporate entities > (corporations _and_ unions) growing ever larger and taking over the world.. > > The older I get the less far-fetched and paranoid I find the science > fiction that posits a future world that's controlled by corporations, > not governments. You're not wrong, but they're one and the same. Big Government needs and nurtures Big Companies. Big Government wields the power, Big Companies comply and produce the goods, the money, and the political funds Big Government craves, in return for conditions they need to thrive--regulations locking out competitors and newcomers. Worse, Big Government is the biggest company of all, a company that takes from you as it will, that you can't sue for redress, and whose products you are compelled to buy. It's a bad dynamic. Cheers, James Arthur
From: Tim Wescott on 29 Jun 2010 12:44 On 06/29/2010 09:12 AM, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jun 28, 11:53 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> On 06/28/2010 07:07 PM, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jun 28, 4:36 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> On 06/28/2010 01:37 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: >> >>>>> Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in >>>>> news:y8WdnT0T99dLRrXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: >> >>>>>> On 06/28/2010 09:13 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:26 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:34:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> www.wvgazette.com/News/201006280099 >> >>>>>>>> Will the KKK furnish an honor guard? >> >>>>>>>> John >> >>>>>>> Doesn't exist anymore. But maybe we should bring it back to round up >>>>>>> liberals (and Californicators ;-) >> >>>>>> Check your assumptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK. >> >>>>>> There may be a local chapter near you, ready to welcome you with open >>>>>> arms. >> >>>>> if you value the Constitution and it's principles,"liberals" aka >>>>> "progressives",are the main threat to it and America. >> >>>> I think that one of my Libertarian friends put it best: Democrats and >>>> Republicans may disagree on which part of the constitution doesn't >>>> matter, but they both think that parts of it should be dispensed with, >>>> and neither of them, on getting into office, drag their feet on tearing >>>> up the parts that they feel get in the way. >> >>> The Constitution's a control system, brilliant, with various feedbacks >>> designed to keep government from railing. The designed feedbacks have >>> been defeated, and that's a BIG problem. The whole original >>> architecture was redundant, granular powers (the States), and self- >>> governing (as in "self-limiting," as well as the other sense) and >>> we've subverted that. >> >>> You could say we've gone from an interactive "personal computer model" >>> of government to a batch-processing "mainframe model." Economically >>> that fails, inherently. >> >>>> Do you like the second amendment but not the fourth? Vote Republican! >>>> Value the fourth and fifth amendments? Vote Democrat! Value the whole >>>> damn constitution, especially the first amendment? Vote really >>>> carefully, because you don't have many allies in Washington. >> >>> Amen on the "not many allies"--we're working on fixing that. >> >>> But as to the amendments, the current administration is after all of >>> them. >> >>> The 4th says you have the right to be secure in your papers and >>> effects, just not your medical records any more. >>> The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property without due process >>> of law, yet we just did. >>> The 1st says you have the right to free speech, but the House just >>> passed HR-5175 (the DISCLOSE Act), which is particularly designed to >>> silence the TEA Party movement. >> >>> Really, despite the label, I don't think of these guys in power as >>> Democrats--they're something new. Something scary. >> >> Unless there's something new that I don't know about, the prez said "BP >> really ought to put a bazzilion dollars into escrow" and BP said "OK" -- >> i.e. BP caved before there was even an order to do anything. >> >> In fact, I recall reading late last week that there's a shareholder >> lawsuit brewing against BP precisely for doing that. > > They first accused BP criminally, when Eric Holder, Mr. Obama's > Attorney General, announced opening a criminal investigation into BP. > (That, BTW, is never announced--it's considered prejudicial and > unethical to do so. There are lots of quotes from Mr. Holder saying > exactly that.) > > Then they proceeded to bash BP, to berate and vilify them. > > And then they had a meeting. > > It's been widely reported and confirmed that in the meeting Joe Biden > told BP "You've got no choice. If you don't do it, we'll force you." > > So, that's coercion, of the crudest, sort. > > >> And I'd be a lot less worried about the DISCLOSE act if it were >> even-handed between unions and corporations > > Your instincts are right. The fact that unions needed an exemption > should tell you the DISCLOSE Act is a heavy burden, it's not just > disclosure. > > As I wrote Joel, the people who wrote the bill are afraid of small > corporations, esp. the Tea Party movement. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html > > > >> -- I'm not nearly as >> concerned about big unions vs. big corporations as I'm concerned about >> big anything vs. little ol' me. Big corporations are where innovation >> goes to die, big unions have no purpose without big corporations, and >> we'd all be better off if we didn't have these corporate entities >> (corporations _and_ unions) growing ever larger and taking over the world. >> >> The older I get the less far-fetched and paranoid I find the science >> fiction that posits a future world that's controlled by corporations, >> not governments. > > You're not wrong, but they're one and the same. Big Government needs > and nurtures Big Companies. Big Government wields the power, Big > Companies comply and produce the goods, the money, and the political > funds Big Government craves, in return for conditions they need to > thrive--regulations locking out competitors and newcomers. > > Worse, Big Government is the biggest company of all, a company that > takes from you as it will, that you can't sue for redress, and whose > products you are compelled to buy. > > It's a bad dynamic. You're neglecting to mention that Big Unions, while opposed to Big Companies in all the details, only have reason to exist in the presence of Big Companies. So it's not two Bigs propping each other up -- it's three. Think of the cold war -- the US and the Soviets were each made bigger and more powerful by having a clearly identified opponent. When Regan realized that the whole thing had turned into a giant mutant potlatch ceremony and maneuvered the Soviets into outspending themselves both sides took a blow. I think the Soviet Union could still be here, teetering on the brink of collapse, if Regan hadn't figured out how to undermine them 30 years ago. (It was pretty clear to me when I was in high school in the 70's that the Soviet Union was going to collapse. So I wasn't surprised that it did. What astonished me and delighted me was getting to see it as a young man, not a wrinkled old greybeard.) (Of course, it was pretty obvious that with the resulting easing of tensions between the Big Two that the world would resume its normal state of semi-anarchy between nations, and that has certainly happened. The Soviets lost their ability to keep a lid on the powder keg, and we lost a lot of our interest and excuses. Somehow Regan never took pains to point out what would be coming down the pike as a result of the wall coming down.) -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Jun 2010 15:11 On Jun 29, 11:44 am, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > On 06/29/2010 09:12 AM, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jun 28, 11:53 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: <snip> > > You're not wrong, but they're one and the same. Big Government needs > > and nurtures Big Companies. Big Government wields the power, Big > > Companies comply and produce the goods, the money, and the political > > funds Big Government craves, in return for conditions they need to > > thrive--regulations locking out competitors and newcomers. > > > Worse, Big Government is the biggest company of all, a company that > > takes from you as it will, that you can't sue for redress, and whose > > products you are compelled to buy. > > > It's a bad dynamic. > > You're neglecting to mention that Big Unions, while opposed to Big > Companies in all the details, only have reason to exist in the presence > of Big Companies. So it's not two Bigs propping each other up -- it's > three. Better still, the Big Unions now work for Big Government. Having mostly killed off their private-sector hosts, unions have merged with the government itself, which works to secure their interests. That's California's problem, and apparently New Jersey's too. > Think of the cold war -- the US and the Soviets were each made bigger > and more powerful by having a clearly identified opponent. When Regan > realized that the whole thing had turned into a giant mutant potlatch > ceremony and maneuvered the Soviets into outspending themselves both > sides took a blow. I think the Soviet Union could still be here, > teetering on the brink of collapse, if Regan hadn't figured out how to > undermine them 30 years ago. > > (It was pretty clear to me when I was in high school in the 70's that > the Soviet Union was going to collapse. So I wasn't surprised that it > did. What astonished me and delighted me was getting to see it as a > young man, not a wrinkled old greybeard.) Yep. > (Of course, it was pretty obvious that with the resulting easing of > tensions between the Big Two that the world would resume its normal > state of semi-anarchy between nations, and that has certainly happened. ISTM the anarchy's getting a bit out of hand lately. Lots of nations are emboldened, and acting boldly. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 29 Jun 2010 18:45
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:53:44 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >On 06/28/2010 07:07 PM, dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On Jun 28, 4:36 pm, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>> On 06/28/2010 01:37 PM, Jim Yanik wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote in >>>> news:y8WdnT0T99dLRrXRnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d(a)web-ster.com: >>> >>>>> On 06/28/2010 09:13 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:40:26 -0700, John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:34:22 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>>>>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> www.wvgazette.com/News/201006280099 >>> >>>>>>> Will the KKK furnish an honor guard? >>> >>>>>>> John >>> >>>>>> Doesn't exist anymore. But maybe we should bring it back to round up >>>>>> liberals (and Californicators ;-) >>> >>>>> Check your assumptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK. >>> >>>>> There may be a local chapter near you, ready to welcome you with open >>>>> arms. >>> >>>> if you value the Constitution and it's principles,"liberals" aka >>>> "progressives",are the main threat to it and America. >>> >>> I think that one of my Libertarian friends put it best: Democrats and >>> Republicans may disagree on which part of the constitution doesn't >>> matter, but they both think that parts of it should be dispensed with, >>> and neither of them, on getting into office, drag their feet on tearing >>> up the parts that they feel get in the way. >> >> >> The Constitution's a control system, brilliant, with various feedbacks >> designed to keep government from railing. The designed feedbacks have >> been defeated, and that's a BIG problem. The whole original >> architecture was redundant, granular powers (the States), and self- >> governing (as in "self-limiting," as well as the other sense) and >> we've subverted that. >> >> You could say we've gone from an interactive "personal computer model" >> of government to a batch-processing "mainframe model." Economically >> that fails, inherently. >> >> >>> Do you like the second amendment but not the fourth? Vote Republican! >>> Value the fourth and fifth amendments? Vote Democrat! Value the whole >>> damn constitution, especially the first amendment? Vote really >>> carefully, because you don't have many allies in Washington. >> >> Amen on the "not many allies"--we're working on fixing that. >> >> But as to the amendments, the current administration is after all of >> them. >> >> The 4th says you have the right to be secure in your papers and >> effects, just not your medical records any more. >> The 5th says we can't deprive BP of their property without due process >> of law, yet we just did. >> The 1st says you have the right to free speech, but the House just >> passed HR-5175 (the DISCLOSE Act), which is particularly designed to >> silence the TEA Party movement. >> >> Really, despite the label, I don't think of these guys in power as >> Democrats--they're something new. Something scary. > >Unless there's something new that I don't know about, the prez said "BP >really ought to put a bazzilion dollars into escrow" and BP said "OK" -- It is *not* an escrow. >i.e. BP caved before there was even an order to do anything. "Caved" being the operative word. The extorted often "cave". >In fact, I recall reading late last week that there's a shareholder >lawsuit brewing against BP precisely for doing that. Good. >And I'd be a lot less worried about the DISCLOSE act if it were >even-handed between unions and corporations -- I'm not nearly as >concerned about big unions vs. big corporations as I'm concerned about >big anything vs. little ol' me. Big corporations are where innovation >goes to die, big unions have no purpose without big corporations, and >we'd all be better off if we didn't have these corporate entities >(corporations _and_ unions) growing ever larger and taking over the world. Everything is already disclosed. This isn't about disclosure, it's about censorship of political speech. >The older I get the less far-fetched and paranoid I find the science >fiction that posits a future world that's controlled by corporations, >not governments. It's a common phobia. |