Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: hill on 23 Nov 2006 07:39 Winfield Hill wrote: > > Google Groups is having a little trouble with this long thread. > The message-heading list said there were 9999 posts, so > I hoped to make the 10,000th post, but upon loading all the > article references in the left sidebar, it showed more than > 10,050 posts, so I missed the opportunity. Aha, I see the problem! Google has a bug: for threads of more than 10,000 posts, it sticks at 9999 on its message-heading summary list. A new usenet A10k problem (10k articles).
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 07:48 In article <ek1q41$ucf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <ejv29u$vbq$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ken Smith wrote: >>>>> > In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >>In article <ejqve0$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". >>>> >>>>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >>>>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >>>>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >>>>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >>>>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >>>>for the same journey and ticket. >>>> >>>>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >>>>compelled to buy it. >>> >>>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where >>>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >> >>Have you considered that people should plan ahead? >Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? Babysitting adults does not do them any favor. All it does it keep them dependent on an impersonal entity that is unable to evaluate solutions from a human POV. > >AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn >"plan ahead"! AT&T would still have that monopoly if they had continued to deliver services that their customers needed. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Nov 2006 07:50 In article <456471FC.662B88EB(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> Ken Smith wrote: >> >>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >>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". >> >> >> >>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >> >>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >> >>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >> >>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >> >>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >> >>for the same journey and ticket. >> >> >> >>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >> >>compelled to buy it. >> > >> >Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where >> >unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >> >> Have you considered that people should plan ahead? > >Have you considered that we don't live in an ideal world ? I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. It will deliver the minimum and that's all. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 07:58 hill(a)rowland.org wrote: > Winfield Hill wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>> Winfield Hill wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. > >>> > >>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most > >>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This > >>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress > >>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. > >> > >> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) > >> > >> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, > >> but I never found out which newsgroup. > > > > We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts > > of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! > > Google Groups is having a little trouble with this long thread. > The message-heading list said there were 9999 posts, so > I hoped to make the 10,000th post, but upon loading all the > article references in the left sidebar, it showed more than > 10,050 posts, so I missed the opportunity. > > But, good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still > going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only > read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's > a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. Yes, we've found a flaw with google groups. The summary page seems incapable of displaying any number > 10,000 ! The honour of the 10,000th post goes to T Wake btw. Graham
From: Eeyore on 23 Nov 2006 08:02
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> > >> Have you considered that people should plan ahead? > > > >Have you considered that we don't live in an ideal world ? > > I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national > social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. > It will deliver the minimum and that's all. You just keep saying this with no factual basis. The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a good service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it is for sure essentially 'no frills'. In comparison the US system fails to deliver as much at a far greater cost. Graham |