Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 19 Nov 2006 22:23 In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > [.....] > >The original error starts with you two clowns failing to > >appreciate that capitalism has a soul. > > (Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. > > > To define a term > >"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to > >embrace freely and without external (read governmental) > >imposition. > > It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair profit" > really means. Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If not it is not "fair". > Is it 7% or 15%? Who cares, other than someone who wants to control others lives? > More importantly, who gets to decide and Exactly! > how do you deal, in the short term, with those who choose not to make only > a "fair profit"? Apparenlty you think *you* should be the arbiter. ...sounds totalitarian to me! > [....] > >You two idiots appreciated the underdog syndrome which > >prevails among human beings. The moment that a former > >hero is seen doing well financially society as a whole > >seeks out the next underdog, abandoning their former > >favorite in the blink of an eye. > > > >This leads to an automatic cap on profits experienced > >by business in a capitalistic society. The only > >exceptions are in cases where there is patent or > >trademark protection, such as we see with Microsoft. > > The specific example of drug pricing is a better example. Nobody dies > because they didn't use a Microsoft OS. Maybe some do because... > >Even then, competitive products emerge. > > "emerge" implies a length of time. In the case of drugs, you may just > have to wait for the patent to run out. ....or use an older drug that may be perfectly fine. WHy anyone would listen to drug ads on the TeeVee is beyond me! -- Keith
From: krw on 19 Nov 2006 22:33 In article <75e51$4560fd77$49ed817$28554(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > In article <b8682$455f2266$49ecfa8$11750(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>>In article <88717$455dddd0$4fe7798$2705(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In article <455C9BC9.30B08330(a)hotmail.com>, > >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>><snip> > >>>>> > >>>>>>>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. > >>>> > >>>>It seems to have begun with some terminals which labelled > >>>>their RS232 ports with the logo "com". > >>> > >>> > >>>Oh, I see. I never considered series nor parallel ports as > >>>"comm ports". > >> > >>Smaller words....... > > > > > > Nope. > > I don't have the patience with these clowns that you've > been granting them. I took a logical shortcut. > > > It looks like the logical device names used in DOS have > > leaked out to become common nouns. Like TTY became a common > > noun for keyboard thingies. Our device names for terminals > > were TTY001, TTY002,....TTYnnn. > > There's an entire discussion to be had about that, however > we digress. > > I am constantly amazed at the depth of the rage and the > superficiality of the knowledge several of the participants > repeatedly demonstrate. Never once has anyone mentioned the > word asynchronous. I am led to believe that would be more > than they want to know. > > > The same thing seems to happened to COM when people brought > > up on PCs talk about ports. > > Here's the thing. There have always been (since the > onset of personal computing) other operating systems > and computers available. These memes that have crept > into computer parlance have been adapted pretty much > across the board. Then came PS2 ports and USB. But I > don't want to upset the angry little boys any more > than they've already managed on their own. Indeed, some here (ahem, BAH ;) have been around a little longer than MSDOS. Kids are always trying to prove their manhood. ... seems even the female kids. -- Keith
From: krw on 19 Nov 2006 22:47 In article <50923$455e40b1$4fe7285$6031(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > In article <a0f2a$455ddc22$4fe7798$2513(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article <455C9D51.CF6E6D34(a)hotmail.com>, > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>unsettled wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>[ regarding buying a house on minimum wage ] > >>>>>>>And if you don't have a large extended family ( most ppl don't ) what > >>> > >>>then ? > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>There are many ways to accomplish things. It does require setting > >>>>>>a prioity list. If you want to buy a house, you don't spend money > >>>>>>on buying pu-pu platters every night. > >>>>> > >>>>>It begins with simple things, like buying and learning > >>>>>to use 24 cent stamps. > >>>> > >>>>Both of you seem to think one can affiord a house by saving *pennies*. > >>> > >>> > >>>That's how it's done. > >> > >>Take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care > >>of themseves. It is a mindset, not merely a method. > >> > > > > > > OK, you save $1 a day by not eating out. How long does it take you to save up > > a 20% down payment on a $100,000 house? > > Read it again. It is a mindset, not a method. Yes it is, and not a very comfortable one. One can't buy new toys every month. It is a *responsible* one though. More power to those who can do it! > A young woman I met in Philadelphia in the 1960's > conducted her own experiment on which was cheaper, > to take public transport to and from work, or to > walk. In her case it cost less in shoe replacement > costs alone to take the bus. Interesting experiment! I recently saw a similar one where it was cheaper to drive to work than to bike. People don't process food very efficiently. > In our consumerist society most of us are wasteful > without ever giving it a moments thought. Sure, that's why we're "consumerists". I like, I buy. > Do I buy a $200 overcoat that will outlast me or > do I buy a $50 one that I'll have to replace because > it looks shabby and is falling off me in 3 years? Falling off doesn't sound too warm. My normal (leather) winter jacket is about ten years old. It has a few splits around the collar so my wife bought me a new one for Christmas last year. I took it back. It wasn't nearly as warm, and who cares about a split in the collar? It's *warm* (kinda the purpose of a jacket). > Please remember that usually the poor pay more because > they are either unable to buy well or don't know enough > to. Making bad choices doesn't have to apply to everyone > all the time. The difference is enough to eventually buy > a house. Mostly don't know enough. Cheap <> less expensive. > As far as 20% down on a 100K house goes, you're looking > at the problem thinking inside the box. There are many > ways to get around that requirement, but you might not > be able to buy the house you'd prefer to buy. The point > is to get into owning *a* house, because that's essential. I'm with you here! It's amazing to see the number of "poor" who own homes. > The first house I bought I only put down 4%, and it was > such a nice house and such a good deal that I ended up > living there for 27 years. Heck, I paid more then that > downpayment for a good used 7 year old Ford station wagon. Our first house was a zero-down (close enough, anyway). It was a great deal for us. We lived in it for 11 years, until I was transferred out of state. Bad timing, but that's a different story. > >>>>Do get real. Your answers are quite pathetic and reminiscent > >>>>of the worst excesses of the Thatcher era here. > > >>>Heaven forbid that people take responsibility for themselves > >>>and what they do. > > >>Where would Big Brother be then? <shivers> Hopefully dead, but that's not going to happen as long as people depend on him for their next meal. And that *is* the intention of the Democrats since the "Great Society", if not the "New Deal". -- Keith
From: krw on 19 Nov 2006 23:01 In article <455DEA11.DADB6F54(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> >That's not how people at McDonald's give change. That's not how anybody > > >> >gives change any more, they just give over the amount of money the cash > > >> >register tells them to. If the bill is 5.35, and you give them a 10, the > > >> >register will tell them to give you 4.65 in change, and they do. No > > >> >special skills necessary or learned. > > >> > > >> You are wrong. It takes learning to know which coins are which > > >> value. It takes learning to know what 1 and 5 and 10 and 20 > > >> mean on the paper bills. > > > > > >Ohhh ...... puh-leeze.......... !! > > > > > > > > >> There are people who do not know this stuff. If kids have > > >> never handled money, have never been taught what money is, > > >> how will they know that a dime is $.10? > > > > > >Ohhh ...... puh-leeze.......... !! > > > > You are not thinking. If kids' experience is only with > > credit card swipes, and their parents don't pay using > > cash, how are the kids going to learn about denominations > > and counting out currency money? > > Well..... they won't learn that from working at McDonalds for sure. Why? McDonalds pays real money. They offer real benefits. Why wouldn't kids learn how to handle money by being employed? It's certainly better than learning to live off the government! -- Keith
From: krw on 19 Nov 2006 23:14
In article <ejkcem$8qk_018(a)s922.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.1fc685e22bf7d88a989ba5(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ejhv75$8qk_016(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> In article <MPG.1fc51b4bef154b2c989b82(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <455B40A5.79F0C308(a)hotmail.com>, > >> >rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> krw wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >> > > 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 ! > >> >> > > >> >> > Only if you're within 17K' of the CO. > >> >> > >> >> I make that just a fraction over 3 miles. > >> > > >> >I'm about four miles from the CO according to the crow. How the > >> >telco snakes things is another issue. On the line that went back > >> >to the CO I couldn't get better than about 26K. The other one went > >> >to a SLC in the neighborhood and I could get 49-53K reliably on > >> >that line. DSL was still unavailable. > >> > > >> >> It works over longer distances overr here, albeit not flat out. > >> > > >> >It falls off fast. They're not willing to even try it. > >> > >> I'm talking to you both--towns are trying to get themselves > >> wired. It will be a few years (I think it will be years and not > >> months) before the laws and permissions and telcos and FCC > >> sort all of this out). > > > >Some of the outlieing towns where even 56K isn't available are > >going with wireless Internet to get around the FCC tariffs. > > I keep wondering how Congress is going to stick it to us > when that avenue to our pockets dries up. > > But are the towns allowed to own the stuff or do they > have contract out to a telco? I don't know if the towns will own it or there is a not-for-profit coop that owns the equipment, but the towns are organizing the effort at doing the required permits. They're also paying the tab. There are no poles to rent, thus no "last mile" so it's not under the tariff of the telcos. BTW, Burlington was going to do their own cable TV. The socialists there spent *$millions* on studies and it's gone nowhere. There is nothing that says a municipality can't compete in this arena, just that it's usually a dumb idea. -- Keith |