Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Nov 2006 06:26 In article <ekk3lb$8ss_016(a)s875.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 Google "companies based in Sweden."
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Nov 2006 06:23 In article <s6dpm2l4qnd9snpov14okkvhf2bob0btth(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:38:22 +0000, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>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. > >--- >There exists a parallel between your Prime Minister and our >President in terms of their being the political heads of our >respective governments, but since your system doesn't provide the >checks and balances ours does, your PM wields, theoretically, >immensely more power than does our President. Nearly that of a >King, so perhaps you've not come as far as you'd like to think. > >Just for fun, let's set up a scenario where, for some reason, your >PM runs amuck and, using his vast power, manages to take the UK to >the brink of nuclear war. Who is the only person who can put him >down quickly? >--- But the PM can be forced out of office if his party loses its majority or simply its confidence in him; our President is there for his 4 years regardless.
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 12:16 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. You're missing an important aspect, interference with aviation. Same reason they regulate transmitter towers which don't cross state lines either.
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 12:19 Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >> >>>>Huh? >> >>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without regards > > to > >>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >> >>In the military physical performance is required and >>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>separation. > > > But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't > affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, which isn't socialist at all. If it were a socialist system we'd allow cripples in the US military. >>They have to have the ability to "pay" in terms of >>services provided.
From: unsettled on 29 Nov 2006 12:23
Lloyd Parker wrote: > In article <s6dpm2l4qnd9snpov14okkvhf2bob0btth(a)4ax.com>, > John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:38:22 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >>--- >>There exists a parallel between your Prime Minister and our >>President in terms of their being the political heads of our >>respective governments, but since your system doesn't provide the >>checks and balances ours does, your PM wields, theoretically, >>immensely more power than does our President. Nearly that of a >>King, so perhaps you've not come as far as you'd like to think. >> >>Just for fun, let's set up a scenario where, for some reason, your >>PM runs amuck and, using his vast power, manages to take the UK to >>the brink of nuclear war. Who is the only person who can put him >>down quickly? >>--- > > > But the PM can be forced out of office if his party loses its majority or > simply its confidence in him; our President is there for his 4 years > regardless. Generally true isn't absolute. Nixon lost the confidence of an entire nation. His ouster was predictable in coming because they didn't want Agnew either, nor the speaker of the house. So they forced Agnew out first, replaced him with a semi-neutral guy, then Nixon took the boot. We don't have to have a codified mechanism, as history shows. |