Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 28 Nov 2006 15:08 On 11/28/06 4:16 AM, in article ekh9a6$8ss_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com, "jmfbahciv(a)aol.com" <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > In article <456AF465.7F8B8D0F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>> 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 stop governmental support for unions > who refuse to close money-losing job sites. Since when has it been a responsibility of Unions to do that? Like never. > You stop supporting > people so they need to work in order to buy stuff. You stop > trying to run all business, manufacturing, and startups and let > non-political people do that work. > > /BAH
From: krw on 28 Nov 2006 15:15 In article <456C8FC0.99A839(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > krw wrote: > > > > > >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? > > > > > > > > > > GM and Ford are communist ? > > > > > > > > Given the labor unions influence, I=3Fm not so sure... > > > > > > > > But the word for today is =3Fsocialist=3F. Stop moving the goal posts, > > > > dumb donkey. > > > > > > So, GM and Ford are socialist ? > > > > Sweden certainly *is* (which was the subject, not FOrd or GM), as > > is most of Western Europe. > > Fine. > > So socialism is no bar to commercial success then is it ? Did I ever say it was? -- Keith
From: krw on 28 Nov 2006 15:17 In article <456C902E.8F4A9C00(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > krw wrote: > > > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > John Fields wrote: > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > > > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Powerful minority parties were an > > > > >> >>anathema to them, as is seen now in parliamentary systems. > > > > >> > > > > >> Not at all. They saw the problems in England with a two-party system, and > > > > >> at least some felt they could be solved with multiple parties. > > > > > > > > > >Funny how it's turned out now then ! > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Why? We naturally gravitate to diametrical opposites. From time > > > > immemorial to the present we've had our time subdivided into night > > > > and day. From that we have evolved into creatures with symmetrical > > > > external bodies with mirror-image left and right sides. We also > > > > have good and evil, one and zero, right and wrong, republicans and > > > > democrats... > > > > > > So you guys have a 2 party system and we have a multi-party system. > > > > Our system is two-party, by design. The founding fathers were > > afraid of a parliamentary system where a minority party could > > easily hold immense power. > > I have an issue with your idea of "immense power". Not very likely IME. Minority parties hold extraordinary power, as long as the are needed to support a government. > > > > > In any case, the party system is broken now. Here at least. It may take some time > > > for you guys to catch up. > > > > Not going to change without a new Constitution. > > If that's what it takes..... What makes you think it's going to happen at all? > > -- Keith
From: Don Bowey on 28 Nov 2006 15:44 On 11/28/06 6:50 AM, in article ekhiav$pkt$4(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > 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. You must not have done much of a study for that. I live near Vancouver, WA and can often find FM stations over 100 miles away, for example, Eugene, Or. And when at Eugene, I can find Portland stations, so I know the signal will also go to Vancouver, Wa. Some people make a hobby of finding broadcast signals from distant locations, and write the station for a card (QSL) to acknowledge it. Google might help you find more info. During atmospheric conditions called ducting, some very long signal paths will exist. In my personal experience I've encountered several hundred miles due to ducting. This differs from skip, which can provide a path over thousands of miles. > >> 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. Ok. So consider state borders. Portland, Or. and Vancouver Wa, for example. Or NY and New Jersey. Or Ca. and Mexico. Etc. Don > > >> 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. >
From: Don Bowey on 28 Nov 2006 15:46
On 11/28/06 7:07 AM, in article ekhjbk$pkt$7(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: > In article <C18FA54A.4EC82%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, > Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> On 11/26/06 4:59 PM, in article ekdd8p$906$6(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" >> <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <e4ba5$4569fea8$4fe7485$23334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <C18DE6C3.4E65C%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, >>>>> Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/25/06 9:31 AM, in article ek9uln$lag$9(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" >>>>>> <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since the FCC DOES coordinate and regulate all forms of radio >>>>>> transmission, >>>>>> what is the purpose of your post? >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps the problem is with your understanding. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, the question goes to a core issue. A FM station in SanFransisco is >>>>> not "interstate" but is controlled by the FCC. Under some peoples reading >>>>> of the constitution, it should not be. >>>> >>>> I'm sure you can make a good case for that, however >>>> it belongs to a reguated class, so it is actually the >>>> definition of the class that you'd be fighting. It >>>> gets to be a hairy battle. >>>> >>>> OTOH there's also the argument that it affects interstate >>>> commerce. >>> >>> Now to go back to health care. The drugs, the company that makes the >>> medical equipment, plagues and individual patients may cross borders >>> making the business of providing healthcare as "interstate" as the FM >>> radio. This it seems to me would be the basis on which the federal >>> government could pass laws about it including a NHS. >>> >>> I hope to argue that the NHS would be no more unconstitutional than the >>> FCC is. >> >> Apples and Orange. > > Oh really. Please explain how the logic that applies to one does not to > the other. The reasons for each are not the same. |