Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 19:18 On 11/16/06 3:32 PM, in article Jv67h.6500$IR4.5893(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net, "lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net" <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:C1813799.4CF09%dbowey(a)comcast.net... >> On 11/15/06 7:50 PM, in article 455BE00C.DE95D418(a)hotmail.com, "Eeyore" >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Don Bowey wrote: >>> >>>> I'd rather have a new MG, but they are not importing to the US yet. >>> >>> What are these new MGs ? >> >> It's made in Japan. I don't recall the name of the company that bought >> the >> company. The car carries the MG logo, and the guy who owned it did not >> use >> a "type" code (like MGTJ for Type Japanese). > > I think it's called the MG F. To my knowledge, they were introduced in the > early 90s, and the company that makes them was thinking about exporting to > the US, but it never happened. I suspect they just didn't want to have to > deal with some safety or pollution control law that's unique to the US. > > Eric Lucas > > MG F would be unusual, given that there is already a MGTF..... I'm sure it is all the safety and pollution requirements too, which is fine by me. I can recall when cities like Portland (Or.) were bleak with smog from cars until the pollution laws helped fix it. I haven't seen a smoggy day in years and I'm for keeping it that way. Maybe I should just give up on a new MG and get a Mini Cooper S convertible.
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 19:25 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>in her case, they cost less, and they would cause fewer problems > >> > >> Definitely not. I would have more problems and I'm not ready to > >> ramp up w.r.t. learning how to deal with today's worms, virus, > >> and other bug infestations. > > > > They have really cool things now that do that for you. In about 15 years > > on the Internet, I've never once had a virus or worm. > > It is strange that she is a ComputerGuru (as she often alludes), yet is > wormed to death, I am like you. I have been online since 1992 and have never > had a virus or a worm. I've had my AV ( either Dr Solomon's - a serious while back, another one that came with a PC that was free including updates whose name eludes me now but it had 98 in the name, Computer Associates or AVG ) detect a few and innoculate them very nicely. I did once catch one semi-intentionallyas an 'experiment'. Long story that. It was a new variant and didn't get caught by the AV so I had to remove it manually. That was quite educative. > Odd that, isn't it. Not if you do the right things ! Graham
From: Don Bowey on 16 Nov 2006 19:26 On 11/16/06 4:05 PM, in article 36Sdnfd4Ao9DYcHYRVnytA(a)pipex.net, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > "Don Bowey" <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:C1823B76.4D1E6%dbowey(a)comcast.net... >> On 11/16/06 1:43 PM, in article >> dLednalCyqAORsHYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>> news:n1hol2h34lg57imeobnd9btu9e4dmabv9f(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:27:00 -0800, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> >>>> Gave us: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> What an ISDN switch house provides is the digital part. If there >>>> is no digital switch in the first leg of the system, the area is not >>>> capable of providing ADSL service. >>> >>> As always, you are wrong but continue to insist you are correct. >>> >> I suppose we could compare credentials, but I won't waste any more time >> with >> your ignorance. > > Were you replying to me or to JoeBloe here? > > I obviously made an error. I thought I was replying to JoeBloe. Sorry about that. Don
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 19:31 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > >> > I find the idea of advertsising prescription drugs to the general > >> > public rather bizarre. > >> > >> What better way to get a doctor to prescribe a new drug, than the have > >> the patients bugging them about it? Pure capitalism at work. > > > > All about sales and nothing about delivering sensible health care. > > > > I bet the doctors love having their time wasted by numerous patients > > reminding them of the benefits of the latest 'wonder drug' ! > > It happens over here. People read up some advertising on the internet about > WonderDrug (tm) and then demand they are proscribed it. Often this demand is > despite a lack of clinical trials or any evidence it is effective. And the US drug companies are now talking of doing it here too ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 19:37
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> > >>>The usual reason for not wanting luxury extras like the www is that such > >>>services cost more and have the potential to cause more > >>>problems....except, > >>>in her case, they cost less, and they would cause fewer problems > >> > >> Definitely not. I would have more problems and I'm not ready to > >> ramp up w.r.t. learning how to deal with today's worms, virus, > >> and other bug infestations. > >> > >>> than she > >>>currently has, particularly if she got a (nearly free) upgrade to a used > >>>Pentium. Fear is a terrible thing. > >> > >> You seem to assume fear is always a reason. You are wrong. But then > >> you've often been wrong in this thread. I'm currently wondering > >> if your flawed thinking style has been burnt in. > > > > Yet you are afraid that if you upgrade you will need to learn new things > > to combat the new threats. > > > > You would be surprised how easy it is. Getting some new kit would actually > > save you time. > > *and* save her some energy. > > But here's the catch-22 she's built for herself. If she gets a new > computer, her incantations and omens that she currently uses to struggle > along with the old one won't be useful any more. The catch is, not only > will they not be useful, they won't even be necessary, since she'll be > immune to the types of problems that they were meant to cure/diagnose in the > first place. But that worry-free computing will be accompanied by the > feeling of lack of control or understanding for her, and so she won't let go > of her "security blanket" that she has such a tight grip on. The sad thing > is, she doesn't even know the extent of the fear of moving on that is > preventing her from getting the most out of the Internet. I do have *some* time for BAH's approach but notin any way to the degree she adopts. I was disinclined to move from W3.1 on the basis of what I saw of W95. Indeed I kept using DOS for a long time too. I still fire up my old DOS PC from time to time to access old files and applications. When W98 came out I though that was just fine. A big improvement on 95 imho. ME was very wisely never even considered and it's only quite recently I've started using XP regularly but I still keep a W98 install up and running. Don't fix what's not broken is a good maxim but it can be taken too far. Graham. |