Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 07:44 In article <ek5979$t07$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ek4blc$8qk_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to have >>>confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of local >>>control. >> >>Local economic control. When the politicians begin to control >>the economics, the system becomes communism. > >You need to break open a text book or dictionary. Communism and socialism >are two fairly different concepts. Communist tend to work towards large >organizations and central control. Not all socialists do. Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told what to do all the time. > >Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. No. That's the sound bite. It is impossible to large and efficient with a central control. There have to be too many layers of managers to ensure obedience and that only the approved production is done. Since approval has to arrive from a central point, all innovation has to be squelched. Gradually, enforcement has to resort to killing to week out the independent thinkers and those who can't fake compliance. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 07:47 In article <456658AD.8E7F3B0E(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> > >> >The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >> >delved into why that is. >> >> It's possible that medical technology is too good. > >In what way can that explain the higher level of US infant mortality ? There may be less spontaneous abortions. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 07:50 In article <4565FB83.C82CC77B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >Eeyore wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > Well, Graham, actually it has you as # 10,000 right now. >> > But the number is volatile and it'll change as soon as >> > someone posts higher up in the list, pushing the rest down. >> >> Try this test of their software: See if you can access and read the >> first couple of posts in this thread. > >It has no trouble with that at all. Good. The links aren't broken. I wonder if they doubly-linked it...probably not. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 07:53 In article <MPG.1fcf9771c508b2b6989c41(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ek1q41$ucf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> 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? >> > >> >/BAH >> > >> >> Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? > >It's not particularly caring nor compassionate to force money from >one person to give it to another. The Salvation Army and even the >Red Cross seemed to do a bit better than the USG in the past couple >of disasters. Red Cross isn't any good either. It's run with a government model. The Walmarts and other retail did the best. People should be wondering why and then take another look at all social programs not managed well by governments. >> >> AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn >> "plan ahead"! > >Please tell me that you aren't serious. > <grin> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Nov 2006 07:59
In article <ek55cd$nvu$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <542fc$45657734$4fe7682$23423(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >[...] >>Ken Smith stands in opposition to a lot of stuff > >I'm also for a lot of stuff too, but thank you. > >[....] >>The US doesn't do well with infant mortality. I haven't >>delved into why that is. > >Part of it is who the mothers are and how poor their health is. For some >reason the US has a lot of things like "crack babies" pushing the number >of deaths up. I suspect that if you could remove that bias the difference >would be smaller. Is that where the difference is? I wonder if the number will diminish since the Federal govnerment has put a limit on the number of babies it will pay for. <snip> /BAH |