Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 21 Nov 2006 09:08 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <4563008C.E33FF82D(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>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 have >>>>>>>replacement windows. This means that a frame and window was >>>>>>>built inside the house's window frame. The last wind storm >>>>>>>had two of them providing very fresh air into the house. So >>>>>>>I expended five caulk containers on the outside and took >>>>>>>the windows apart to the point that the gaps between the >>>>>>>two frames were exposed. I then stuffed more of that sponge >>>>>>>stuff around the inner frame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The traffic is not as loud as it was. >>>>>> >>>>>>They were incompetently fitted in that case. >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps. It is also possible that the original sponge stuff >>>>>shifted. It was certainly true that the inside caulking deteriorated >>>>>a bit. >>>> >>>>That still involves rubbish materials. >>> >>>Sigh! No, it does not. The sponge stuff didn't deteriorate. >>>Houses shift. When shifting happens, caulk may not stay stuck >>>to all surfaces. >> >>Has your house been shifting ? >> > > > Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and > react to the seasons. Most of the European and Brit construction I've seen involves masonry. They have no appreciation for the wood frame construction that makes up the bulk of US housing, let alone advantages and disadvantages.
From: Ken Smith on 21 Nov 2006 09:43 In article <ejuug2$8qk_001(a)s861.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eju17q$9su$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ejs81b$8qk_001(a)s952.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <ejr4o4$k7c$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>[....] >>>>Agreed but if you wish to hang onto an insurance based system rather than >>>>a NHS like system, this is a completely seperate problem. >>> >>>I don't want either. Insurance should be only for extraordinary >>>circumstances. >> >>The insurance companies disagree with you on this for a good reason. It >>is less costly for them to cover the checkups that may find the disease >>early than to pay for the cure once it is well under way. > >This is nice in theory. What happens is that fixing broken things >ends up in a waiting line because most of the labor is assigned >to do prevention. Take a look at the Canadians. That's what is >happening. No, it isn't. Do you have a cite? Very few people come from Canada to the US to get some extra bit of health care. Meanwhile, India and Mexico are creating a whole industry out of serving unmet medical needs of americans. >> >> >>> Instead what we have is a "insurance" that is >>>expected to pay for everything. As a result, it does pay for >>>everything and becomes a Ponzi scheme. >> >>You are once again confusing two problems. Insurance currently is not >>running as a Ponzi scheme. > >HMOs are getting into it. No, they aren't. Insurance companies that wish to stay in business won't turn into a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes require that you plan on going out of business adn leave people holding the bag. > >> I believe this is also true of the NHS. In >>both cases, the budgets are balanced. > ><splutter> [emoticon wipes off TTY screen] Do you have any evidence that the NHS's budget is not balanced? I believe that under UK law, a government department can't spend more than it is allocated. > >> Ponzi schemes operate by making >>promices for the future that are not intended to be kept. > >Intention has nothing to do with. Oh, so you wish to redefine what Ponzi did. > There exist "honest" Ponzi >schemes where the intention is there but the service is impossible >to deliver long term. You need to pay more attention to fudging >balances on federal budgets. The NHS in the UK has not promiced more than can be delivered so it hasn't become an issue. > >>Insurance >>companies don't do this. They wish to remain in business for the long >>term. > >Sure. And they are overwhelmed due to circumstances, the politicians >pass a law that make the Federal govnerment responsibile. IOW, >the taxpayers end up paying when the Ponzi balloon gets a pinprick >and deflates immediately. But, it isn't a "Ponzi balloon" and there is no pinprick. >>Systems like the NHS tend not to do this also because the >>politicians know messing with it is a career ender. > >That is short term thinking. No, that is practical long term thinking. The actions taken today effect the future but are based on the considerations in play today. A politician doesn't want to get booted out. He knows that messing with NHS will get him booted out. His consideration is short term but the effect is that NHS continues to run well for the long term. >>I think you missed my point. My point was about the method by which any >>providers will be attracted into the market. The insurance company and >>the provider are different companies. The provider will only do work for >>the ensurer if the ensurer agrees to pay enough. > >Wake up. The provider has to "obey" the insurance companies or >the provider will never get any business. No, you need to wake up. The provider is a business. They have the option of going out of the medical business and into some other. If the insurance companies make life too hard on the providers, the investment money will go elsewhere. It is like all other parts of the capitalistic system. The investment chases the best retrun on the dollar. When the return on being a provider is seen as poor, providers start to disappear as the money goes into other industries. >> >>> Every bureaucratic >>>layer adds a little bit. >> >>The NHS and Medicare most likely both have fewer layers than the insurance >>model. > >You are joking here. I'm going to assume that you are joking. No, I'm not joking. An insurance company can easily have more layers than government. Some time back, GM underwent a major shake up. It was said that they had more bureaucracy than India at the time. There is no law of the universe that limits the number of layers in a private company to less than that of government. >> >>> The more layers, the more tithes the >>>cost increases. >> >>You are assuming that the layers don't take decreasing sized fractions and >>that the layers don't take less than lets say the small business case. >>Take the extreme small business example of a one person operation. When >>that person buys paperclips, it costs "doctor time" to buy paper clips. > >No, it does not. Are you suggesting that a doctor buying his own paper clips makes sense as a business practice? If so I would suggest that you have taken leave of your senses. A doctor is a highly trained, highly skilled and highly paid worker. In business you try to keep such persons doing what best applies their skills and training. >>[...] >>> This is what happens when the small business model >>>is no longer used. Patients are no longer treated as individuals. >> >>I have dealt with small businesses that didn't treat people as >>individuals. > >Did they stay in business? My local businesses definitely know >which sides their bread is buttered. Oh, yes. I believe they are still in business. In some ways a small company may be more able to do this sort of thing. To them it could be that there is a new customer born every minute and that is enough. >>Medicare runs with about a 3% overhead rate. > >I don't believe this. If you had WWW access you could see for your self. > That may be the Federal percentage. The >state percentage also has to be included. E
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Nov 2006 09:40 In article <45630702.8D1D6D53(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I have >> >> >> >> replacement windows. This means that a frame and window was >> >> >> >> built inside the house's window frame. The last wind storm >> >> >> >> had two of them providing very fresh air into the house. So >> >> >> >> I expended five caulk containers on the outside and took >> >> >> >> the windows apart to the point that the gaps between the >> >> >> >> two frames were exposed. I then stuffed more of that sponge >> >> >> >> stuff around the inner frame. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The traffic is not as loud as it was. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >They were incompetently fitted in that case. >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps. It is also possible that the original sponge stuff >> >> >> shifted. It was certainly true that the inside caulking deteriorated >> >> >> a bit. >> >> > >> >> >That still involves rubbish materials. >> >> >> >> Sigh! No, it does not. The sponge stuff didn't deteriorate. >> >> Houses shift. When shifting happens, caulk may not stay stuck >> >> to all surfaces. >> > >> >Has your house been shifting ? >> >> Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and >> react to the seasons. > >You don't have decent foundations ? What does that have to do with the minor configuration changes done by temperature changes and gravity? > >What style of construction is this btw ? Wood frame built on fieldstone. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Nov 2006 09:41 In article <681b1$45630847$4fe7571$7927(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <4563008C.E33FF82D(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>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 have >>>>>>>>replacement windows. This means that a frame and window was >>>>>>>>built inside the house's window frame. The last wind storm >>>>>>>>had two of them providing very fresh air into the house. So >>>>>>>>I expended five caulk containers on the outside and took >>>>>>>>the windows apart to the point that the gaps between the >>>>>>>>two frames were exposed. I then stuffed more of that sponge >>>>>>>>stuff around the inner frame. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The traffic is not as loud as it was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>They were incompetently fitted in that case. >>>>>> >>>>>>Perhaps. It is also possible that the original sponge stuff >>>>>>shifted. It was certainly true that the inside caulking deteriorated >>>>>>a bit. >>>>> >>>>>That still involves rubbish materials. >>>> >>>>Sigh! No, it does not. The sponge stuff didn't deteriorate. >>>>Houses shift. When shifting happens, caulk may not stay stuck >>>>to all surfaces. >>> >>>Has your house been shifting ? >>> >> >> >> Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and >> react to the seasons. > >Most of the European and Brit construction I've seen >involves masonry. They have no appreciation for the >wood frame construction that makes up the bulk of >US housing, let alone advantages and disadvantages. But that doesn't explain it. They have to repoint masonry in order to keep up maintenance. Their cracks are bigger than mine ever will be. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 21 Nov 2006 09:53
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: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I have > >> >> >> >> replacement windows. This means that a frame and window was > >> >> >> >> built inside the house's window frame. The last wind storm > >> >> >> >> had two of them providing very fresh air into the house. So > >> >> >> >> I expended five caulk containers on the outside and took > >> >> >> >> the windows apart to the point that the gaps between the > >> >> >> >> two frames were exposed. I then stuffed more of that sponge > >> >> >> >> stuff around the inner frame. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The traffic is not as loud as it was. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >They were incompetently fitted in that case. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Perhaps. It is also possible that the original sponge stuff > >> >> >> shifted. It was certainly true that the inside caulking deteriorated > >> >> >> a bit. > >> >> > > >> >> >That still involves rubbish materials. > >> >> > >> >> Sigh! No, it does not. The sponge stuff didn't deteriorate. > >> >> Houses shift. When shifting happens, caulk may not stay stuck > >> >> to all surfaces. > >> > > >> >Has your house been shifting ? > >> > >> Of course! All houses shift and creak and swell and shrink and > >> react to the seasons. > > > >You don't have decent foundations ? > > What does that have to do with the minor configuration changes done > by temperature changes and gravity? In Britain it would be poor foundations that give rise to movement of a house as the ground swells and contracts with water content. > >What style of construction is this btw ? > > Wood frame built on fieldstone. That explains it. There are very few wood houses here. Graham |