Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 12:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> I don't have a com port. > > > >On a 486 ? You normally have 2. What does your modem connect to ? > > > >That would be astonishingly unusual ! Where does the mouse go ? > > Serial ports. That's a 'com' ( communications ) port ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 12:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>>> I don't want an internal modem. I want one with lights that flash > >>>> for every I/O. > >>> > >>>They don't help that much you know. > >> > >> What? Lights? Yes they help a lot. > > > >You're fooling yourself. Viruses can still get through, > > I can see when one is coming in. No you can't. A virus infected file is indistinguishable from one that isn't infected to a modem. It's just a file. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Nov 2006 12:04 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I am telling you that your type of NHS would never be > >> >> implemented here > >> > > >> >I can accept its chances may be slim due to vested interests but that's > >> >not the point I was trying to make. > >> > > >> >> nor would it work. > >> > > >> >Just explain *why* it wouldn't work. You keep making this assertion on the > >> >basis of vague notions. > >> > >> I have already told you. Yours is based on small business models. > > > >No it isn't. The NHS is one of the largest organisation in the world ! > > > >> A single-payer in the US cannot have that; it is too big--3000 miles > >> wide 1700 miles long. You cannot administer distribution system > >> using a small business model while keeping the decisions central. > > > >Then how do the likes of FedEx and DHL function *worldwide* ? > > They cannot deliver individual service. They do not repackage, > recolor, nor remake the package nor the contents. There is > no comparision to carrying a package from point A to point B > and fixing a single individual's ailment. But they do operate over the entire planet ! Stop looking for artificial problems. Graham
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 12:11 On 11/17/06 4:58 AM, in article ejkblm$8qk_012(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <455C8889.E558C69B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> How many referrals do you think the person should be allowed? >>> >>> At the moment, I'd like to limit the number of referrals a _doctor_ >>> can make. Dad's on his 6th or 7th referral. And the basic stuff >>> hasn't been done yet. They're playing the Medicare system to its >>> max. >> >> You need an 'NHS'. > > He is on the US' NHS called Medicare. Diagnosis of an ill old > person now takes lots of referrals and tests and stuff. Your a complete, devious idiot, or you may be just a troll. *Regardless* of age, multiple referrals may be required. I'm an ill, old (not really - just 70) person with another illness, and the first referral by my PCP resulted in a likely cause diagnosis, requiring a second one which firmed the diagnosis. Another referral resulted in a plan for part of the treatment, etc., etc. So what in the hell is your real problem with what's going on with your dad, and what's with your pathetic attitude? By the way, some illnesses aren't fixable. Get used to that concept and try to not blame anyone if that is the case. > > /BAH I thought I could ignore you, but I failed.... I'm still wanting to know what is the "...basic stuff (that) hasn't been done yet." I really think either you or your parent has a serious communication problem.
From: Don Bowey on 17 Nov 2006 12:15
On 11/17/06 5:03 AM, in article ejkbuo$8qk_014(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <455C9097.30011163(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 12 Nov 06 12:40:15 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We pay the development costs. >>>>>> >>>>>> What about drugs from Roche or Clin-Midy and so on? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sigh! We pay the development costs. If Roche didn't include >>>>> theirs in US prices, they'ld sell a lot more drugs. >>>> >>>> What's not discussed in this thread is the fact that >>>> the manufacturers have been advertising on US TV for >>>> some time now that if you can't afford the medicines >>>> you need you should contact them because they have >>>> programs to assist those living in poverty needing >>>> their products. >>> >>> Those have existed all along. It does seem odd that >>> the drug companies are started to adverstise these on >>> TV when the Drug Medicare Bill became law. >> >> I find the idea of advertsising prescription drugs to the general public > rather >> bizarre. > > How would a person find out about drugs? The naming is bad > enough. Trying to find out all the side effects, efficacies, > etc. is very diffitult to do. The existence of the net is helping. > > /BAH Finding the side effects of every drug is SO SIMPLE anyone with a computer could do it. Further, in the US most pharmacies provide a sheet of such info with each prescription drug they provide. Get Real! |