Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 9 Nov 2006 13:29 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. > >> > > >> >What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? > >> > >> Any wood you want to prevent termintes from eating. > > > > I see. > > > > Luckily we don't have that problem here. We do get wood rot though. ! > > She oversimplifies as usual. CCA (chromated copper arsenate) is a > broad-spectrum biocide...mold, mildew, bacteria, insects, mammals, birds, > etc. The stuff really is amazing--stuff can be in contact with the ground > for 20 years and still essentially look like new. The pressure-treated CCA > is the only part of my house that's not being eaten by carpenter bees and > woodpeckers at the moment...voracious little bastards! I can't imagine living in a wooden house at all ! Graham
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 13:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eive3d$8qk_028(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <G1y4h.11017$r12.7330(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:ebe9$45527d5d$49ecfec$17717(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:37:42 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>I also find it a thing of wonder how well the whole lot of them was >>>>>able >>>>>to foresee how American society might develop, how prescient they all >>>>>ended up being, and how well they took account of it in their ideas >>>>>about >>>>>how the country should be structured. >>>> >>>> >>>> They were a very wise bunch indeed. They also had the luxury of being >>>> able to start from scratch. >>> >>> Not at all. They had a population that demanded as >>> little change from what they were used to as >>> necessary. As time went on they reverted to much >>> of what they sought to escape when they came here. >> >>I think it was a good balance between keeping the parts of the English >>system that made sense, and preventing the transgressions that made them >>leave England. >> >>Or were you refering to the increasing imposition of religion on the >>government that has been happening off-and-on for the last 20 - 30 years? >> >>I will say it is a shame that the current US public is currently so >>fearful >>of change that no revolutionary new ideas have a chance. The debate over >>nationalized health care is an excellent example. > > What is worse is people deciding to fix what ain't broke. So improving an operating system is a "no-no" in your book?
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 13:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eivamt$8qk_008(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <BM14h.8314$B31.7002(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eiq0h1$8qk_012(a)s900.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <dGS3h.5355$7F3.3682(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >>>>news:MPG.1fb9bd1d862e8abb989ab0(a)news.individual.net... >>>>> >>>>>> Dry wood burns very cleanly. >>>>> >>>>> It still stinks to hell. >>>> >>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>(particularly >>>>hard) wood. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I burn some in a fairly efficient stove, >>>> >>>>It's not just efficiency, it's also related to pollution control >>>>devices. >>>> >>>> >>>>> but unless there is a wind blowing it's a mess. It stinks if it's >>>>> still, >>>> >>>>Not if you're using a good, modern wood stove, and good dry >>>>(particularly >>>>hard) wood. >>> >>> How do you make everybody do this? >> >>Why your desparate need to "make everybody do" things. Why not just let >>them make their own decisions, and you make yours? > > Because there are never "do not burn" stamps on wood filled > with arsenic. Because there isn't any pollution controls > on burning wood. The ones who "sin" the worst are those > who are rabid anti-smokers of cigarettes, consider the need > for oil to be a mortal sin, and are against nuclear power plants. > > Yet these people have no problems with filling a whole neighborhood > with smoke and arsenic. This is another example of perfection > of inability to think. Another example of the problems with making unfounded assumptions.
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 13:48 <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 am not deliberately misreading your posts. You need to learn to be clearer in what you say. If you didn't mean to imply that the clerical workers were workers, your post makes even less sense. One of two options is available. You either posted "Workers are those who do the actual delivery of service...the ones that count" for no reason as it had no bearing on what came before or after - or - you posted it to imply that the "Unions have few such clerical workers as members" was irrelevant because only those who do the actual delivery of service count. Which was it? Mistakenly, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the latter. Was it, in fact, just a meaningless sentence which added nothing? >>>> >>>>>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. >> >>Really? How do you work that out? > > Experience. What experience do you have of national health services?
From: T Wake on 9 Nov 2006 13:52
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455368BB.5A9A6A6C(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>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. > > Something similar is happening here wrt pensions too. > > I don't think private companies are up to the task of providing critical > services like this very well. I wholeheartedly agree. Private companies need to make a profit. That is their reason for existence and will, generally, maximise what profit they can make. National services (pensions, health care to name but two - rail is a whole new subject....) are not suited to mass profit. Personally, I think it comes down to what people expect a "society" to be. If it is simply something people have to sacrifice _to_ then it isn't worth being part of. If it is something which helps all, then maybe it has value. Not all western societies are the same. |