Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Nov 2006 08:58 In article <ekhgg4$140$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <MPG.1fd572bb53792143989d17(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>In article <ekf023$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. But you are counting them using one hand! /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Nov 2006 09:00 In article <456C495F.B9D867A9(a)hotmail.com>, 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: >> >> > >> >> >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. >> >> Not at all. You don't understand how wealth is created. Those >> hundred would, not only create their own work, but a side effect >> would be other work that had to be done to support their business >> or deliver their business. > >I'm sorry but that's fanciful nonsense. I know you do not know how business works. > >Taking the motor industry as an example, outside sourcing may contribute say 3-5 >jobs for every single one in the car factory but that's a very mature industry. > >You simply can't make these analogies with small start ups. How do you think the large companies got started? It occurred to belatedly that you are a teenaged boy. That would explain a lot of the bizarre things you have written and your ignornance of how stuff works. /BAH
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 09:24 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <149c4$456c71cf$4fe7665$9834(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <62e38$456c4191$4fe703f$8534(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>>>The early days. 1980's. >>> >>> >>>Nah. The best days haven't happened yet. >> >>LOL. I'll play. It won't be usenet. > > > The 80s were awful w.r.t. networking. The computer biz was just > starting to learn what didn't work. Your expressed view of usenet is stifled. It is about conferencing, not about the technical nature of computer networking. The technical aspects are only the vehicle.
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 09:28 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <456C495F.B9D867A9(a)hotmail.com>, > 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: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>> >>>Not at all. You don't understand how wealth is created. Those >>>hundred would, not only create their own work, but a side effect >>>would be other work that had to be done to support their business >>>or deliver their business. >> >>I'm sorry but that's fanciful nonsense. > > > I know you do not know how business works. > > >>Taking the motor industry as an example, outside sourcing may contribute say > > 3-5 > >>jobs for every single one in the car factory but that's a very mature > > industry. > >>You simply can't make these analogies with small start ups. > > > How do you think the large companies got started? > > It occurred to belatedly that you are a teenaged boy. That > would explain a lot of the bizarre things you have written > and your ignornance of how stuff works. "On December 17, 1903, at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the Wright Flyer became the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard." http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/ Small start up company.
From: Ken Smith on 29 Nov 2006 11:10
In article <C191DF9D.4F0CD%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/28/06 6:50 AM, in article ekhiav$pkt$4(a)blue.rahul.net, "Ken Smith" ><kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: [.....] > >> "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. What makes you think I didn't? > 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. Take a look at the geography in the SanFransisco area. I picked that location for a good reason. I live near enough that I've had a goodly amount of experience with where the radio signals get to. Nobody in another state is *ever* going to hear KALW over the air. There are hills that ensure that you can't get a low angle to the ionospere. Google on "total internal refraction". >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. Ducting won't get the signal from KALW out of 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. > >Ok. So consider state borders. Portland, Or. and Vancouver Wa, for >example. Or NY and New Jersey. Or Ca. and Mexico. Etc. No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a NHS. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |