Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:19 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:f4p7l21a400mq09lf26tcq86s8gkv3q479(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:40:12 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> >>"xray" <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message >>news:k9u5l2tn644sntciap2sbagjmb5fabq2bl(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:44:20 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>> However, the Republican Party >>>>> platform is more apt to provide for economic growth. >>>> >>>>Since when was a huge and increasing foreign debt the model for economic >>>>growth ? >>>> >>> >>> Foreign debt? That's so 80's and 90's. We started this war to try to >>> make our own internal debt far outshine our foreign debts. >>> >>> Of course, since we no longer make a large portion of the stuff we are >>> using in the war, you might still have a point. >> >>Ya think? >> > > Name a foreign part in the M1 Abrams. If you really do want to know, and are prepared to pay then you might want to look at this report: http://www.stormingmedia.us/73/7323/A732303.html The abstract reads: "Abstract: The purpose of this thesis is to inform the acquisition community of the growing concerns related to foreign-source dependencies for parts and components of the United States Army's M1 Tank. The overall extent of foreign- source use in the production and support of the Ml tank are unknown, due to the lack of data. The M1 program management office has little awareness of the extent of foreign-source use in the weapon systems, particularly beyond the prime contractor and their immediate subcontractors. Failing to gain accurate and timely data concerning foreign-source dependencies at the sub-tier levels of production and support of the weapon systems, may present risks to the program. Failing to manage foreign-source dependencies can cause production stoppages in an emergency." Also this, unfortunately biased, blog may be interesting for you: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=7526 - its title reads "What kind of superpower can't make parts for their military?" Why don't you rant there for a while.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:21 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ej224u$bv5$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <f4p7l21a400mq09lf26tcq86s8gkv3q479(a)4ax.com>, > JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:40:12 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>> >>>"xray" <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:k9u5l2tn644sntciap2sbagjmb5fabq2bl(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:44:20 +0000, Eeyore >>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> However, the Republican Party >>>>>> platform is more apt to provide for economic growth. >>>>> >>>>>Since when was a huge and increasing foreign debt the model for >>>>>economic >>>>>growth ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Foreign debt? That's so 80's and 90's. We started this war to try to >>>> make our own internal debt far outshine our foreign debts. >>>> >>>> Of course, since we no longer make a large portion of the stuff we are >>>> using in the war, you might still have a point. >>> >>>Ya think? >>> >> >> Name a foreign part in the M1 Abrams. > http://www.stormingmedia.us/73/7323/A732303.html I wish I had read your post before I did a Google search of my own. Doh. :-)
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej1qbp$8ss_006(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <9HG4h.11569$B31.1808(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><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. >> >>Why do you presume that it is the anti-smokers who burn pressure-treated >>lumber illegally? That is a rather illogical, quite misanthropic, and >>*very* disingenuous assumption. > > Why do you assume that I have no personal experience at all? I dont think people do make that assumption. The problem is you extrapolate your very limited experiences on a massive scale with little or no reason to do so. > It > appears that, unless I can point you at some web site, you won't > accept any fact at all. A projection methinks.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej1qf8$8ss_007(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <t9q6l29vs3eu6l4hii0h5l4duja5rqt80h(a)4ax.com>, > Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>On Thu, 09 Nov 06 13:33:17 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>You know this for a fact, do you? It's only the anti-smokers who burn >>arsenic-treated wood? Amazing. > > It was anti-smokers in my work area who boasted about burning > wood and not committing the sin of burning oil. Guess what > kinds of wood they burned? Anything that didn't cost much. > My neighborhood had one guy who burnt his old deck wood. I > was very ill. In my area the anti-smokers are anti-wood burning. That means all anti-smokers are anti-wood burning.
From: T Wake on 10 Nov 2006 13:42
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej22rc$8qk_013(a)s995.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eivs0e$vor$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <eivcit$8qk_019(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <X8s4h.10931$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. >> >>Which is why the cost should be spread over the entire population, as it >>is >>done in Europe and Canada. > > Spread the disease so everybody has to have to it. Industry > cannot afford it because it is insurance and the whole medical > delivery system is getting run by insurance rather than need. This is why a nationalised system works better than a single payer insurance system. You seem to miss the point. <snip> |