Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 09:49 Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > If you expect people to be noble, they often will be. One US president > thought that giving a speach was more important than his health and dies > as a result. Some postal workers take "neither sleat nor snow..." > litterally. If you make someone king and they take it seriously, they may > do something like this. It isn't a special property of royalty. > > >I don't think I can ever understand that flavor of a mindset. > >But Europeans have no trouble understanding it; they even > >expect it. > > Because they "very publicly expect it", the royalty is given a standard > that they are going to be measured against. With that standard in place, > human nature makes the royalty act that way some times. But even our Queen has had to take time off recently due to back pain ! Maybe she's not so stupid as the above after all ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 28 Nov 2006 09:50 In article <C18FA4D0.4EC81%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/26/06 4:52 PM, in article ekdcsg$906$4(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" ><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > >> In article <C18F34DC.4EA2A%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, >> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> On 11/26/06 11:57 AM, in article ekcrj1$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? > >Several things come to mind that support the FCC governing all US radio >transmission. > >1. A radio broadcast station in SNFC with a license issued by the State >could interfere with reception of a transmitter in another state which is >licensed by the FCC for interstate transmission. "could" doesn't mean it does. An FM station in SanFransisco will not be heard in another state. Geography will see to that. Its range running inland will be less than 50 miles in most directions and certainly less than 200 in all. There is no way that it will make it out if state. >2. A multitude of low power transmitters within a state could interfere >with all interstate reception, intentionally or by accident. Not on the FM band in SanFransisco. The station I am using as an example would not have any out of state FM stations to interfere with. >3. Computing devices can interfere with reception unless their radiation >power and spectrum are controlled. Multiple jurisdictions setting their own >state regulations could result in poor reception of interstate signals. This one I will grant you so we can have the federal government involved in interference issues. >> >> Think hard before you answer this. The question is not about FM radio. > >I didn't have to think very hard to come up with this suitably short list. Now see how that same sort of argument allows the federal government to form a NHS. 1) People may cross state lines to get medical care. 2) Plagues may cross state lines. 3) Insurance and medical companies may be out of state. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 28 Nov 2006 09:54 In article <Mvsah.31145$yl4.24624(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:ekcrj1$g1o$8(a)blue.rahul.net... >> In article <79c91$4568893d$4fe7197$9163(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>>> In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, >>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>> [.....] >>>> >>>>>Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps >>>>>there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other >>>>>than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 >>>>>certifications for a piece of gear? >>>> >>>> >>>> I like radio just fine. >>>> >>>> Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in >>>> another >>>> state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal >>>> government preemptive control. >>> >>>How many microwatts will cross the border when you're >>>standing next to a state line with the transmitter? >> >> Why is an FM station in SanFransisco under FCC control? > >This is of course a pathological example, as is Honolulu, Anchorage, and >other stations that do not broadcast beyond state borders. I picked it exactly for that reason. The real argument here is about the claim that the constitution forbids a NHS. The FCCs power to regulate the FM station in SanFransisco is unconstitutional by that same argument. [...] >I simply haven't heard a credible or reasonable argument that suggests that >a national health care system set up by the Federal government would face >Constitutional issues, especially in the face of things like Medicare, >Social Security, and other Federal welfare programs that have withstood the >Constitutional test of time. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Lloyd Parker on 28 Nov 2006 04:18 In article <MPG.1fd572bb53792143989d17(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ekf023$abg$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> >> OK, Sweden. Saab, Volvo, Scania -- plenty of private enterprise. > > >You do know that Saab is owned by GM and Volvo by Ford? > So? That doesn't change my argument that the major industries there are capitalistic. And Saab and Volvo were independent as recently as 5-6 years ago. Volvo trucks still is, BTW.
From: Lloyd Parker on 28 Nov 2006 04:16
In article <862ca$456b8a32$49ecfcf$4294(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <52483$456b1860$49ecfde$979(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>>In article <MPG.1fd28e4b92c5a97989cc1(a)news.individual.net>, >>>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <asydncaDLYw_J_XYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:phineaspuddleduck-416009.21422525112006(a)free.teranews.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <Ls-dnZRLjKdkKvXYnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>>>>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I certainly agree on that. "Chavs" have a tendency to crop up most in >>>> >>>>the >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>areas most affected by Thacherite policies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It seems to be a rebellion to the way things were done. You have the >>>>>>>worst of both systems. The right wing view that everything now >>>>>>>disallowed is permissible, and the left wing view that the state should >>>>>>>mollycoddle you. Add that to a fanatical hatred of anything not "local" >>>>>>>and "familar" and you have a chav. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'm left of centre myself. I can see the need for the state to keep >>>>>>>checks and balances, but human nature sometimes really makes me cry! >>>>>> >>>>>>Prior to getting embroiled in this thread, I thought I was fairly right of >>>>>>centre. I now see the error in my ways and I am firmly left of centre now. >>>> >>>>I >>>> >>>> >>>>>>suspect half the apparently right wing extremists posting on this thread >>>>>>live very different lives away from USENET. >>>>> >>>>>No, you're a left-wing extremist, right there with the dumb donkey. >>>>>This isn't surprising since you're both socialist Europeons. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>To you, anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a socialist. >>> >>>You probably ought to read history about Attila (and note the >>>spelling, it's not a Brit name.) >> >> >> From wikipedia: >> >> "n Hungary and Turkey the names of Attila (sometimes as Atilla in Turkish)," >> >> Also see http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3atilla_p1dz.htm > > From your web page: > >"While most people see Atilla [more often spelled "Attila"]..." > >The following tidbit comes fom a web page that makes the >hyperhstory page look like a comic book parody on the later >history of the Huns: > >"Hungarian-speaking population of Hungary from the German, Slavic, and >Romanian minorities. Sz�kely, ethnic group of Transylvania and of >present-day Romania, is another good example. The Sz�kely (also known as >Szeklers or Siculi) came into Transylvania either with or before the >Magyars. Their organization was of the Turkic type, and they are >probably of Turkic (possibly Avar) stock. By the 11th cent., however, >they had adopted Magyar speech. Some scholars disputed the word 'adopt' >since they believe that Sz�kely were of Magyar family, related to one of >the two sons of Attila the Hun. Sz�kely later formed one of three >privileged nations of Transylvania (the others were the Magyars and the >Saxons). " > >http://www.republicanchina.org/Hun.html > >This page provides a learned study of enough elements to provide >the reader with sufficient information to make a reasonable >decision about the languages involved and to arrive at the "correct" >spelling of Attila's name. > >I don't care why you spelled the name as you did. You're in the >minority. Maybe I just like double-L names! |