Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 20:15 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:ldgjm2l364hlq0bpfc259t8fgrk9s1cq7u(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:37:08 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>news:l08gm2he8d16ve3dlfkuoiblcbngogeeb7(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:57:14 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>> (Ken Smith) Gave us: >>> >>>>In article <HZidnczurMtWkvrYnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>Bit like saying that because the Irish Republicans spent thirty years >>>>>bombing the UK, any political party with "Republican" in its name >>>>>supports >>>>>terrorism, violence and non-political methods of forcing people to obey >>>>>it. >>>>> >>>>>Well, is that the case? >>>> >>>>A fairly good argument could be made if you assume: >>>> >>>>"shock and aw" == terrorism >>>>war == violence >>>>war == "nonpolitical methods" >>>> >>>>You should have picked a better example. >>> >>> The word is AWE, you dipshit. >>> >>> You should have picked an example that you at least know the >>> spelling of. >> >>That's never stopped you. >> >>Eric Lucas >> > You're an idiot. That's never stopped you, either. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 26 Nov 2006 20:18 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:qogjm2h2o3omue5is96u5d5ceut4bndgjc(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:55:10 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck > <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >>In article <ekc3qu$8ss_007(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> There is something more important here. He cannot conceive >>> of a medical distriubtion system that isn't completely >>> controlled by the national government. This means that >>> he doesn't require chocies and is willing to allow a few >>> politicians make all this decisions for him. This means >>> that when his politicians do screw him, he has no means >>> to save himself. >> >>Our Health Service is NOT completely controlled by Govt. Funded by not >>equal to controlled by. Are contractors controlled by their funders? > > --- > By and large, yes. > > If I hire a contractor to put a new roof on my house I will expect > him to put a new roof on my house. > > Similarly, I expect that your government, if it's funding the health > service, expects certain norms of competence to be exhibited by the > contractors (doctors) it hires. Also, I'm sure there are certain > basic rules laid down by the government which the health service, > itself, must follow, which _is_ control. Am I wrong? Yes. Aetna pays doctors to perform services, but I don't know a practicing doctor who would say that Aetna controls what they do. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 20:20 In article <ekc862$8qk_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eka0ov$lag$14(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [...] >>>You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of >>>paper was created to solve a problem. >> >>As you agree below, that problem may not exist anymore. It also may not >>have existed on the day it was "solved". > >Sure it did. You don't understand how processes evolve. So, please explain how this special case of the human endeavour manages to be free from the "fictional problem" problem. If it is, it is the only example in the universe. >>>step was created to solve a problem. >> >>You are assuming no "blockers" were involved. Blockers create extra >>paperwork because they see paperwork as an ends not a means. > >No, they see it as a means of control. That is what processes need. No, blockers see paperwork as the end not a means. That is one of the defining characteristics of a blocker. >>>work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of >>>processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure >>>the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some >>>these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper >>>will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. >> >>So, you admit that there *is* needless paperwork. > >Processes evolve. What once was necessary is only there because >deleting the step would cause more breakage; leaving the step >in doesn't break anything. Ok, so you *do* admit that there is needless paperwork. [....] >>It is also because once a system works at all many people will assume it >>is perfect. > >ARe you kidding? Everybody bitches about the other guy's control. No, I'm not kidding try to change anything in almost any company and see it at work. I've seen it several times. [....] >>No, we were talking about the economic effect of the needless paperwork. > >I'm saying that you cannot identify which is needless. I don't need to identify which bit is needless. All I need is to know that there is needless paper work and we can go on to the subject of the drag it places on the economy. > I can think >of some cases, where a delay is inserted in a process so that the >processing works more smoothly. The delay, by itself, is completely >unnecessary; howver, in context of the whole process, it is >what keeps the timing exactly correct. What in the neame of Zeus are you talking about? >>As soon as we agree that some must exist, we can go onto the real core of >>the discussion about the economics. > >No, we can't. You keep using an incorrect assumption. I don't see >how using a false premise is going to create any useful discussion >because conclusions using a false premise will produce thread drifts. >They would be a waste of our ASCII time. No, my assumption is correct. You have already admitted that there is needless paper work. > >Once more I'll try an analogy even though they don't seem to work >in this thread. > >You are essentially asking me to assume that any high school >chemistry lab can make gold out of pencil erasers. Then >you want to discuss the effects of shutting down all gold >mines on the economy. No, I wish to talk about filling out form 1287-B about eraser to gold conversion. If you fill out that form, you waste some of your time. This is what we are talking about. Needless paperwork is a drag on the economy. I said nothing about stopping a productive activity. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 20:28 In article <4569F7C2.1C1C7317(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [...] >> More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a >> Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of >> State. > >Titular Head of State. Only because she's female? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 26 Nov 2006 20:35
In article <4569F8E3.9C04DE39(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and >> >> we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call >> >> the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored >> >> this further. So add a grain of salt. >> > >> >There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the >meanings of >> >the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. >> >> --- >> What's this, then? >> >> http://sp-usa.org/ > >Do they have any elected representatives ? Bernie Sanders aint chopped liver. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |