Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 19:42 In article <26efc$4568e781$4fe7791$11166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >There's the old joke about what do you call a person who speaks >two languages, bilingual. How about a person who speaks three >languages, trilingual. How about 1 language, and American, Unfortunately it is true. Also many americans think that all places outside america are more or less equal. This leads to big surprises about the situation in the middle east for example. [....] >> Communism needn't have a large number of layers. It is as you say where >> the means of production is owned by the state. I don't think they can >> maintain that mindset without also assuming that the state will do a good >> job of running things. > >Old habits die hard. Look at the guy who just died of poisoning >in England. That is a function of tyrany not communism. > >> [..communism on small scale vs large..] > >> I almost think we need to call large scale and small scale communism >> different things. When the ruled and the ruler are no longer in direct >> touch with each other, a whole new dynamic sets in. > >Possibly it is that a gang mentality sets in, I don't >know. "Gang mentality" starts at a much lower number of people. It is more in the area of "those others are not humans" or perhaps "the cannibals are the folks across the river". Somehow the humanity of the others must be denied. [....] >If the USSR had managed to live in isolation from the rest of >the world they probably would never have collapsed. If you >think about this a bit, the beginning of the end came early, >when Lenin met Armund Hammer. I think it was doomed by the fact that nobody told anybody the truth. "The harvest is coming in just fine" and "the car factory met its quota" would be the story sent around even if both had burned down. Russian joke: Comrads, I have good news and bad news. First the bad news: There is not a enough foot to go around this winter so some of the population will have to get by eating horse manure. Now the good news: There isn't enough of that to go around. >> The >> other countries that called themselves communists have largely given up on >> the idea. I think the trend has been towards liberty for the last 50 >> years at least. There have been set backs and twists in the road but the >> general trend is still a good one. > >Liberty is another issue. If Soviet Communism had actually lived >up to its ideas If I could fly by flapping my arms ... > it might very well have been a wonderful place >to live. I suspect that much of the stated ideas was a rationalization. The real motive was gaining power. >> Right now I see two major threats to it. One is an aberrant form of >> populism that believes that wealth falls from the sky. > >This actually led to the temporary shutdown of one of the >two Shaker communities. When the state attempted to declare >their property forfeit because of abandonment, the other >community stepped in and resurrected it by transferring >a few members and reopening acceptance of new members. > >I see the wealth from the sky thing in Puddledick's >complaint that when the mines were shut down in Thatcher's >days, nothing else was done to provide work. The "nothing else" part may be a good point. How about giving a tax holiday to a company that sets up a new business or something like that? >I think people need to look at this sort of mindset a >little more in depth. I never thought I was entitled to >live out my life where I was born or settled. Others would protest that this is "their home" and they should not be forced to move away from it. Your life in the community you live in is not a physical thing but it can be said to be a possession. > In my life >I've lived 7 time zones apart at the limits of my >livelihood. I've only lived in two time zones. > I have always felt that it is a person's >business to look after his own livelihood, to do >whatever is necessary to live as well as he can within >the limits of civilized behavior. If that requires one >to relocate, then by darn, relocate. (This is one of the >the "secrets" to earning the best possible income that >others in this discussion considered "good luck.") Luck still plays a roll. Many things in life are pure chance. You may get hit by lightning or your competitor might. >Of course if one can successfully encourage business or >the government to provide work, then that's fine and dandy. >But to keep complaining for decades that economic >circumstances forced the cessation of some local industry >or another isn't a legitimate complaint IMO. There can be issues with how it is done along with the that it was done issue. [....] >A fellow I knew told me his secret to success while in >military service. "You just need to understand all the >rules very well, then use them to assure the outcome >you want." The same is true in any large organization >with rules, including large corporations. The guys >immediately above are stuck with the same rules you >have, after all. Somewhere up there is the guy making the rules. In the corporate world he can change them to his advantage with out your permission. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 19:44 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <24c3f$4569e4d0$4fe775f$22843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > > [... crack addicts ....] > >Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... > > If it cost $10 a day to keep them off drugs, it is cheaper than putting > them in jail. The brits want to help them. This may be the more > practical answer even though I don't see how they can keep an addict away > from drugs. Relocation away from the cities could be an answer. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 19:44 In article <jrvjm29oagb1cs9ch5js2tbq7r776m4lrl(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:04:55 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <0nejm254r61ffb0hmon9pe2255atqfheho(a)4ax.com>, >>JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >>>On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:00:07 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>>(Ken Smith) Gave us: >>> >>>>Notice that >>> >>> >>> What I noticed is that you don't even examine your cut and paste >>>work. That entire segment was rife with incorrect characters. >>> >>>Got clue? >> >>I'm sure if I had changed those characters you would now be claiming that >>I did not quote exactly. >> >> > You're an idiot that knows less than nothing about usenet at all. If >you *did* know anything about Usenet, you would have used OTHER than >illicit characters in ANY post you make. LOL. Proof read. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 19:52 In article <C18F34DC.4EA2A%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/26/06 11:57 AM, in article ekcrj1$g1o$8(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" ><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >> In article <79c91$4568893d$4fe7197$9163(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>> [.....] >>>> >>>>> Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>> there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>> than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>> certifications for a piece of gear? >>>> >>>> >>>> I like radio just fine. >>>> >>>> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >>>> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>>> government preemptive control. >>> >>> How many microwatts will cross the border when you're >>> standing next to a state line with the transmitter? >> >> Why is an FM station in SanFransisco under FCC control? >> > >Because that is part of their responsibility. What makes you a one trick >pony? I think you are missing the point so I will try to make it clearer. The US constitution contains the "commerce clause" which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. It also has a section that says that "power not enumerated" are reserved for the states or the people. How does the FCC get the right to control the FM station in SanFransisco? Think hard before you answer this. The question is not about FM radio. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 19:54
In article <4826d$4569fe0b$4fe7485$23334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <79c91$4568893d$4fe7197$9163(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>[.....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>>certifications for a piece of gear? >>>> >>>> >>>>I like radio just fine. >>>> >>>>Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another >>>>state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>>>government preemptive control. >>> >>>How many microwatts will cross the border when you're >>>standing next to a state line with the transmitter? >> >> >> Why is an FM station in SanFransisco under FCC control? > >Because they all are. Selecting ones to deregulate is >nest of snakes nobody wants to put their hands into. Would you say that this is a wink at the constitution? Or do you see some way that you can get to it being allowed? There is a reason that has nothing to do with FM radio that I am asking the question. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |