Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivbs5$8qk_014(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <e81a6$4551f94f$4fe75b2$14650(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <MPG.1fb90e071de0287c989aa6(a)news.individual.net>, >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <454F423C.3B207DEE(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The days of inheriting a bicycle shop that grew into >>>>>>>an airframe manufacturing enterprise are gone. >>>>>> >>>>>>No, it's not. >>>>> >>>>>Do please supply an appropriate example. >>>> >>>>Hewlett Packard, Apple, Mc$hit, Dell... Who knows where the next >>>>one will pop up. >>>> >>> >>> >>> He'll object to that because they're too old. Google, E-bay, >>> Vehix(sp?). I can imagine a day where you login to General >>> Motors and fill out the specs for the car you want and have >>> it delivered in n days. I'd like to see this done with books ;-). >>> IOW, mass production will become blase for anything other than >>> computer equipment :-))). >> >>I object because they're not heavy industry. > > Now define heavy industry. Do you consider chip makers > heavy industry? Name one chip maker that has gotten started since the 1970s. Eric Lucas
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:22 In article <4551EF97.599E3CFD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <1162901489.499250.295790(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >Winfield Hill wrote: >> >> >> >> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >> > >> > Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >> > of the posts were under the original subject title. This >> > must be some kind of a record. >> >> I don't think so. >> >> >Certainly it's a stress >> > test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >> >> KEWL!!!! Has there been any glitches? > >None I'm aware of. > >7360 posts and counting. You can't know the correct count. If their counting mechanisms are wrong or there's an exclusion to the count, you can't tell if there's a mistake. This is a problem I've been spending time thinking about. How do you detect something is missing if you don't see it and haven't been told it exists? If I solve this one, the comm world will give me a gold star. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Nov 2006 09:24 In article <P4m4h.9861$r12.5744(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eismvd$8qk_001(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eirk14$qa6$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>Where does the money really go? "the general fund" is an accounting >>>device not the final destination of the money. >> >> Patronage pockets. Extending all infrastructure projects 2 or >> 3 decades. The so-called social services. Building disintegrating >> buildings. > >You really do need to see more of your own country. Not every >infrastructure project is "The Big Dig", and not every state in this nation >is phenomenally stupid enough to let a fiasco like the Big Dig happen. Oh, shove it where sun don't shine. He asked where our tax monies were going. I listed a few. Why do you keep generalizing my specifications to the point of fiasco and then using your erroneous conclusions to put words in my mouth? /BAH
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivcdg$8qk_018(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <toednYmJ4tKD0c_YnZ2dnUVZ8qqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eiskun$8qk_002(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eiq575$qnu$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <eiprjo$8ss_003(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <einool$7gj$10(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>In article <eikp37$8qk_001(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>In article <QqSdnTiCZpUVWtHYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Neither will work efficiently nor deliver service on demand. You >>>>>>>have to plan how to be sick or have somebody do it for you. That >>>>>>>is why people who are very ill have to have a patient advocate. >>>>>>>These were not needed before this medical insurance business >>>>>>>became a right instead of a benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Canada's system does not work for a certain class of services. >>>>>>>People who need those services were able to come to the US and >>>>>>>get them in a timely manner. When the US converts to a >>>>>>>single payer system, like Canada, the Canadians and the USians >>>>>>>who need these services will have to go to another country >>>>>>>whose medical infrastructure will provide. >>>>>> >>>>>>Right now, a number of Americans are going to ... India for medical >>>>>>care. >>>>>>Care to explain why? >>>>> >>>>>Because our medical system is changing to a national health run >>>>>by many chiefs. Since all that paper pushing has to be funded, >>>>>monies are going to bureaucracies rather than infrastructure >>>>>and labor. The workers are now union; so that adds to labor costs. >>>> >>>>What? The people who fill out paperwork at insurance companies? No >>>>way. >>>>Unions have few such clerical workers as members. >>> >>> Workers are those who do the actual delivery of service...the ones >>> that count. >> >>So the clerical workers aren't workers then? Are you posting this from >>1886? > > I think you are doing this misreading on purpose. If so, why do you > do so? I think you are saying that about him to negate the good point he makes. If so, why do you do so? Oh, never mind. >>> Especially the second reason. That is a harbinger of what will >>> happen if the system becomes a national entity run by the >>> government bureaucracies. >> >>Really? How do you work that out? > > Experience. You've experienced a conversion to national health care? Do tell. Those on this group who *actually* have experienced such a change, are quite happy with it. Don't you think you might just want to listen to them sometime, instead of entering the discussion with your own preconceived notion of what will and won't work, and refusing to accept data to the contrary? Eric Lucas Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 9 Nov 2006 09:29
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivcit$8qk_019(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <X8s4h.10931$r12.9903(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eiskun$8qk_002(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <eiq575$qnu$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <eiprjo$8ss_003(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>In article <einool$7gj$10(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>In article <eikp37$8qk_001(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>In article <QqSdnTiCZpUVWtHYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Neither will work efficiently nor deliver service on demand. You >>>>>>>have to plan how to be sick or have somebody do it for you. That >>>>>>>is why people who are very ill have to have a patient advocate. >>>>>>>These were not needed before this medical insurance business >>>>>>>became a right instead of a benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Canada's system does not work for a certain class of services. >>>>>>>People who need those services were able to come to the US and >>>>>>>get them in a timely manner. When the US converts to a >>>>>>>single payer system, like Canada, the Canadians and the USians >>>>>>>who need these services will have to go to another country >>>>>>>whose medical infrastructure will provide. >>>>>> >>>>>>Right now, a number of Americans are going to ... India for medical >>>>>>care. >>>>>>Care to explain why? >>>>> >>>>>Because our medical system is changing to a national health run >>>>>by many chiefs. Since all that paper pushing has to be funded, >>>>>monies are going to bureaucracies rather than infrastructure >>>>>and labor. The workers are now union; so that adds to labor costs. >>>> >>>>What? The people who fill out paperwork at insurance companies? No >>>>way. >>>>Unions have few such clerical workers as members. >>> >>> Workers are those who do the actual delivery of service...the ones >>> that count. >>>> >>>>>All access to medical help is done through insurance company >>>>>doors. >>>> >>>>These people are going to India because (1) they don't have insurance >>>>and >>>>American medicine costs too much, or (2) their insurance won't cover >>>>what >>> they >>>>need to have done. >>> >>> Especially the second reason. That is a harbinger of what will >>> happen if the system becomes a national entity run by the >>> government bureaucracies. The medical field is unique in that >>> all of its business is personal. Managing what has to be >>> small business relationships and models with a corporate umbrella >>> can't work well. >> >>And the first reason is going to become ubiquitous as industry is less and >>less willing to pay for the health care of its employees. > > Industry can't afford it. Yes, you are correct. It doesn't change the fact that the number of people actually having effective health insurance under the current system in this country is rapidly decreasing toward a limit of zero. Eric Lucas |