Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 15 Nov 2006 18:59 On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:44:32 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ged rid of your middle class attitudes Workers of the world unite, eh? >Lucas lives in WV. Betcha he rubs shoulders with people >earning under $200 a week and doing just fine. I have no idea what or where WV is, unless it's an upside down VW.
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 19:11 Jonathan Kirwan angrily proclaims: snip > The specific case should not have happened. Imperfect as humans may > be admitted as being, this particular case is a simple failure that > didn't even have to happen and wouldn't have, in other existing > systems in place and operating already, today. > Excusing the specifics by moving to a useless extreme that applies to > anything and says nothing doesn't help us progress at all. Fact remains we'll never achieve zero defects. As I said before, I empathize. The reality is terrible things can happen to any of us. In your case it was a close call, too close for comfort. There was, fortunately, enough of a failsafe system in place to overcome stupidity, which has no cure. Try talking to Lucas, Eeyore, and Wake about whether or not the woman denying service to your brother should have been in that position. Their Marxist socialist humanism would have given her the opportunity to hold down that job and given her raises because human beings should be paid "a living wage." The reasons we'll never achieve zero defects regardless of whatever system is in place are obvious. You're not going to be able to replace the people who run services with anything that functions better. So long as you depend on people, mistakes will be made. See also Murphy's Law. snip
From: Don Bowey on 15 Nov 2006 19:19 On 11/15/06 10:54 AM, in article KZGdnWKpX6vM_8bYnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d(a)pipex.net, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:455B48C7.F77C6A02(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>> >>>> On the positive side it will help a bit with global warming if there is >>>> no more cheap Saudi oil to run all those ugly gas guzzling SUVs. >>> >>> And wouldn't the roads be a far more pleasant place to be, without having >>> to >>> deal with those damn things. >> >> I find it especially irritating to be caught behind one as you can't see >> past them ( or through them ) to see much of the road ahead. >> > > > I don't tend to mind them that much. The main things I get caught behind on > the roads are tractors and lorries. Give me a "gas guzzling SUV" any day. > > (Not to mention the problems with the real gas guzzling sports cars which > not only have worse MPG, but carry less people and are normally driven in a > more reckless, less economical manner) > > Yes! Go like hell and burn my share of my grandchildren's gas. Fun - what's not to love? Don
From: Don Bowey on 15 Nov 2006 19:38 On 11/15/06 2:05 PM, in article HaM6h.10667$yl4.6534(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com, "lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net" <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:C180A7E1.4CD2F%dbowey(a)comcast.net... >> >> I prefer the earlier B also, but the price of one in decent condition is >> just more than I want to pay, and I'm tired of restoring cars. > > Yeah, I lucked into a decent price on mine. It's definitely a work in > progress, though. The previous owner had gone through and replaced a lot of > parts with non-identical aftermarket (for example, an AC Delco rotary fuel > pump, instead of the original reciprocating pump.) I'm now going through > and replacing them with original replacements. Work on it has stalled the > last couple years, but I hope to resume soon. I fear soon I may need to > rebuild the engine, because it's sounding very "valve-y". > > >> The 79 was >> in nearly great shape and bargain priced because nobody could fix it's >> problem; it would simply quit running without warning. It took a few days >> to find the electronic ignition unit was shot. It was the wife's daily >> driver for 15 years, then a big Mac dump truck drove up on the rear bumper >> at a stop signal getting the trunk and left rear fender. The daily driver >> now is a BRG Miata MX5. > > My personal situation changed a couple years ago (got a dog and a fiancee), > and I had to get rid of my Miata. I miss my Miata. It was my daily driver > for almost 10 years, with the B as my weekend touring car. Lucky me! > > >> I'd rather have a new MG, but they are not importing to the US yet. > > Frankly, I'm rather a purist, and I detest what I have seen of the new > design. > > Eric Lucas > > The one I looked over looked good and sounded awesome (was in London a few years ago). And the best part is that in 25 years it will be an antique and I will only be 95. What a match! Don
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Nov 2006 19:41
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:11:30 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan angrily proclaims: > >snip > >> The specific case should not have happened. Imperfect as humans may >> be admitted as being, this particular case is a simple failure that >> didn't even have to happen and wouldn't have, in other existing >> systems in place and operating already, today. > >> Excusing the specifics by moving to a useless extreme that applies to >> anything and says nothing doesn't help us progress at all. > >Fact remains we'll never achieve zero defects. > >As I said before, I empathize. The reality is terrible >things can happen to any of us. In your case it was >a close call, too close for comfort. There was, fortunately, >enough of a failsafe system in place to overcome stupidity, >which has no cure. > >Try talking to Lucas, Eeyore, and Wake about whether >or not the woman denying service to your brother should >have been in that position. Their Marxist socialist >humanism would have given her the opportunity to hold >down that job and given her raises because human beings >should be paid "a living wage." > >The reasons we'll never achieve zero defects regardless >of whatever system is in place are obvious. You're not >going to be able to replace the people who run >services with anything that functions better. So long >as you depend on people, mistakes will be made. > >See also Murphy's Law. But you are simply talking about a strawman argument that no one is talking about. You've moved from a real case that should not take place to a discussion about zero defects in an entire medical care system. No one said we need to achieve zero defects overall. However, this defect should not happen because it is so easily avoided and actually is, elsewhere. Some things you cannot do anything about. This one can be fixed. Jon |