Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Nov 2006 08:35 In article <ekcs4f$g1o$11(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <slrnemhs15.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, >Don Klipstein <don(a)manx.misty.com> wrote: > >{... radio FCC and interstate commerce ...] > >> In addition, the US has this "Communications Act of 1934" IIRC. IIRC, >>this one established the FCC and gave it power to regulate radio >>transmissions. > >The question I was posing was: "Is this law constutional because it >regulates things that are not interstate commerce". Some people would >argue that it is. All of this is going to have to go through a long debate with the invention and now-common use of new comm technology. > >[....] >> I don't seem to recall exceptions for transmissions that >>have good expectation of not being detected across state lines. >> This does sound like a good case to throw $$$$$$ into up to SCOTUS, but >>there is the additional burden of diastinguishing from the majority of >>detected-only-intrastate non-sanctioned radio transmissions being truly >>noise - as in mostly being considered noise by over 99.9% of Americans >>regardless of whether and how they agree with Rush Limbaugh. I am not >>talking about "pirate"/rogue radio stations so much as inadequately >>designed products that have RF oscillators or sparking contacts. > >The creation of electrical noise interfers with commerce. The power to >govern it, should be in the same place as the power to govern intended >radiations. This isn't really an independant issue since if there was no >use of RF, the uninteded radiations would not matter. Now consider the fact that packaging is going to have "I am here" chips in them. Now consider the problem when cereal boxes are transported across state lines to all grocery stores. All of a sudden, you have the FCC, the FTC and all kinds of other regulatory entities claiming their piece of the grocery store territory. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Nov 2006 08:46 In article <be7e8$456c3bb3$4fe703f$8391(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <456C2E21.87E1BD0D(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>> "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Amazing! That was post 10873. All nicely archived in Google, so that >>>>>future generations may not lose one word. >>>> >>>>I worry about that. One little buyout and the whole archive can >>>>be gone. >>> >>>It already has been bought out. >>> >>>It was deja.com before google. >> >> >> And do you know what's been lost because of that buyout? > >Actually? IMO the best of usenet. What is your definition of the best of usenet? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 08:54 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: > >> > > >> >> Do you really want > >> >> me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still > >> >> can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? > >> > > >> >The issue of self-sufficiency is entirely another matter. What do you do > >> >when > >> >there's a shortage of jobs ? 4 million short in Thatcher's days ( around > >> >10% unemployment ). > >> > >> You stop duct-taping the thumbs of the people who know how > >> to create wealth. > > > >You reckon ex-mine workers are entrepreneurs ? All 100,000 of them ? > > Nope. You'ld need only a 100 of them to create new work. If that were true then each one of those businesses would have to employ 1000 other ex-mine workers. That's clearly not going to happen overnight ( or even in the long term ) no matter how favourable the circumstances may be. > All of them are very capable of doing work outside thoes mines. Actually there were re-training schemes set up precisely because they *didn't* have the skills to compete elsewhere ! Note, I'm not saying they weren't generally capable workers, but they most certainly hadn't been brought up in a business environment. Nor did they have business skills. You wouldn't expect that ! > Miners have skills that middle-income city slickers never learned. And are no longer valued ! > All those workers needed was permission to go out and work. Union > rules kept them idle. Simply not true BAH. It would be an insult to miners to call them idle. Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 08:55 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >Amazing! That was post 10873. All nicely archived in Google, so that > >> >future generations may not lose one word. > >> > >> I worry about that. One little buyout and the whole archive can > >> be gone. > > > >It already has been bought out. > > > >It was deja.com before google. > > And do you know what's been lost because of that buyout? Apparently nothing. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Nov 2006 08:56
In article <ek9v7p$lag$10(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ek9j8k$8qk_001(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>> The framers unwisely did not put any >>>rules on radio communications. It was very short sighted of them. >> >>No,no,no. They were short-sighted by not including TV licenses. >>Not anticipating radio comm was due to tin ears. > >The real problem is that they did not put anything in for the "sort of >interstate" commerce. They left a huge gray area. Perhaps they figured that business agreements between states were the states' business. > > >[.... Hillary ....] >>No,no. Futures. That means that the investment company bet >>on when the drug indices would go up and when they would go down. > >Do you know how much money it was? No. With her pattern, it wouldn't have to be much. > The futures market is not a safe >investment by any means. It is a zero sum game so there must be losers. Not if you can determine the winners with your policy decisions. BTW, futures is not an investment instrument. > >I don't have any holdings in futures that I know of. If I do it woud be a >very small fraction of my holdings. Do you have money in a mutual fund? Then you do. Do you have your checking account with a large bank? Then you do indirectly. Is your pension squirreled away in your account or the company's account? If the latter, you more than likely depend on somebody guessing correctly. > One reason I may have them is as a >hedge. You can actually arrange things so that you win if the stock goes >either direction. Only if it holds still do you lose. Hedge? If you have a put or a call, you're playing exotic futures. > > >[....] >>I'm now on my second bout of the flu. So my writing >>is going to be less clear. >> >><GRIN> Now you may say, "Oh, joy!" > >I got my flu shot. This time it didn't make me feel bad. I don't have to get the shot. All I have to do is breathe the air where the shots are being dispensed. I'm pretty sure a shot would kill me. > >BTW: Chicken soup really does work. Yea. Guess what wasn't on my shelves when I started this flu cycle. I went out when I got better and got enough food for my larder so I don't have to place myself in jeopardy again this winter...except for milk and maybe some meat. > It gives you the needed burst of >energy. I don't need a burst. I also stuff my nose with Vicks. Mom keeps telling me to put it on a sock around my throat but I haven't done that yet. 2 down, 6 more rounds of flu to go. /BAH |