Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 23:53 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455BD2C0.7A9B7952(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> >> > As a side note,what sort of surface area would a 4 bedroom house in the >> > US >> > have? >> >> NB she said 4 rooms, not 4 bedrooms. That would typically mean bedroom, >> kitchen, living room and bathroom. That's probably on the order of 1000 >> sq >> ft. > > LOL. My house has that area and it has 7 rooms. > > >> 4 bedroom houses are becoming positively enormous here. Typical areas I >> see >> in the newspaper are as much as 2500 sq ft. Older ones might be as >> little >> as 2000 sq ft. When I drive through suburban areas that are being >> heavily >> developed, I'm always shocked at the ubiquitous enormity of the houses. > > The heating / cooling bills must be enormous. Surprisingly not. New construction in the US generally is very well insulated, even compared to things built just 20 years ago. Windows are traditionally places of huge heat loss, but new construction methods and technologies have minimized heat loss there, too. My 2400 square foot 15-year old house in WV cost about 1/3 as much to heat as my 1500 square foot 75 year old house in New Jersey, despite similar climate and similar fuel costs. I suspect there are now laws regarding how much insulation is required in new construction. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 16 Nov 2006 00:05 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:d5mnl2lq86ophapdfjae00i22q5l39lj0s(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:53:22 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>I'd still like to hear his theory of who or what gets to determine what a >>"reasonable profit" is. > > > Dumbass. I was referring to companies like Enron and Sempra Energy, > which were found to have been price gouging on energy. They were even > found to be criminal in their behavior. Their criminal behavior was collusion in setting prices. Aside from these pathological cases, high profits are not intrinsically evil, and they *are* by definition an aspect of capitalism, if the balance of supply and demand justify the high price. In any case, nice attempt to sidestep your original argument. Your original example was the high price of crappy medical care under the current US system. What have they been found guilty of in relation to their ridiculous prices for awful service? > I guess you were asleep for that one. Nope, nice of you to think of me, though. > Just so you know, it goes on > all the time. What does--unreasonable profits or collusion in setting prices? One is legal and is a common part of pure capitalism, and the other is illegal. Do you know which is which? (By the way, *pure* capitalism also includes collusion and price fixing, and requires government control--i.e., the socialism that you dread--to make it illegal so that competition is "fair".) > I think Exxon and big oil does it, What evidence is there of price fixing. > and we let them get away with it. So don't just whine about it, *do* something about it. Or are you expecting your government to do something about it? How anti-capitalistic of you, since capitalism is an economic system without government control of business. > How are > those headaches going? Fine, thank you. And the voices in yours? Eric Lucas
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 00:16 On 11/15/06 5:48 PM, in article 205e3$455bc0a8$49ecf7a$21517(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > Don Bowey wrote: > >> On 11/15/06 4:11 PM, in article 93461$455ba9e7$4fe75f7$21090(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, >> "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 >> >> ^ >> and Bowey > > If you insist. > >>> 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." > >> That's a really bad lapse of both knowledge and logic. > > No matter how much you wiggle and wriggle and blather, > you can't alter the basic issue in this case. > > Your denial that the situation arose out of ordinary > stupidity, which has no cure, disqualifies you from > further attention on this subject, or any other for > that matter. But it DOES have a cure, and it's called responsible supervision, training and follow-up. You're a defeatist, whiny, irresponsible even for yourself, person. Grow up. > > snip > >
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 00:17 On 11/15/06 6:36 PM, in article 455BCECA.87A7BE07(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Don Bowey wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> This used to happen in the UK too before the NHS. It wasn't considered to >>>>> be a very satisfactory arrangement. >>>>> >>>>> Graham >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Not satisfactory to whom? >>> >>> The post war electorate. >> >> Piffle! > > Eh ? > > Graham > > Indeed.
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 00:27
On 11/15/06 7:28 PM, in article limnl2114gmfvlaar0okbtbic645gcbuoc(a)4ax.com, "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:28:04 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from a >>>> population center to get decent DSL. >>> >>> I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. >>> You people are starting to get really annoying. >> >> DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! >> >> Graham > > Wrong. > > ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. > That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his > area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service > line will do DSL. Wrong. An ISDN DSL is only two 64 kbit/s Bearer Channels and the 18 kbit/s Data Channel which is used for signaling, etc. An ADSL does not require ISDN. |