Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 20:47 This is picking up where I left off before. I had to get to work. This is the weekend so I have a little more time. In article <48fc9$4570a0a5$4fe75b2$8202(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <c4cc2$456a56e4$4fe73b3$25337(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>Not all of it goes there. Some goes to the parts needed. The money >>>>changed hands but other than the repaired machine, nothing of value was >>>>created. There is now slightly less value in the economy. >>> >>>Start with any loss being the fact the machine failed in the >>>first place. Nothing lasts forever. The problem isn't as simple >>>as you're presenting here. We'd have to get into an entire *huge* >>>discussion about economics to resolve it. Try this definition >>>on for size. >> >> >> I am attempting to make a very simple example to make a point. Yes it is >> a simplification, but I claim that the idea that it is showing is valid. >> It is the wealth and not the money that matters. If it was just the >> money, the government could print enough to make us all rich beyond our >> wildest dreams. The government can't do that because the money is just >> how you keep score. It is wealth that really matters. >> >> .... stopped here time to get going ........... > >Don't stop here please. The next part is where it starts >getting interesting. > > >>>S: (n) axiology (the study of values and value judgments) >>> >>>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=axiology ....a handy word. >>> >>>Then: >>> >>><http://www.amazon.com/What-Value-Introduction-Axiology-2nd/dp/0875480772/sr=8-3/qid=1164596439/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-6419119-2470246?ie=UTF8&s=books> There don't seem to be any reviews of it. Maybe you should go put one in. >>>Will the one world government be an Islamic republic? At one time everyone said that the communists were going to take over the world. All the same arguments made about them are coming back about the extremist muslims. In both cases, it was said that once a country is converted it can never convert back. In the case of communism this has been repeatedly shown to be false. I expect that in the next 20 years, Iran will show the same about Islam. This assumes that the US doesn't meddle and make it take a lot longer. The yonger generation in Iran want their freedom. They still are muslim. Christians of today would not be infavor of the Spanish Inquisition[1]. I think that we are seeing the beginnings of a changed muslim faith. Once that is consistant with liberty may be emerging. [1]They would not expect it either but that is another matter. The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really are. If you tried to create a world government where the rules came from religion, you would have either a world war or never ending debate. Only if you agree going in that these are "laws of men" can you agree to allow democratic results to rule. If my bible says "God forbids the wearing of wrist watches", having the majority disagree with me would not change my view that it is a moral outrage. If on the other hand[1] it was merely a voted on rule, I may disagree but I could go along to get along with no crisis of faith. [1] ie: The hand with the wrist watch. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 20:50 In article <64ec7$456a5c9b$4fe73b3$25547(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ce8ce$45688adc$4fe7197$9197(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >> >> [....] >> >>>>>Actually it's even simpler -- your Medicare taxes are withheld every payday >>>>>and I assume for most businesses now, electronically sent to the IRS >with the >>>>>push of a key. >>>> >>>> >>>>That key is likely to cost a penny. >>> >>>Nope. You have to distribute IRS costs proportionally to >>>their destination. The Infrastructure, etc, isn't >>>free to some, and costly to others. >> >> >> Huh? > >Illustration, with inaccurate numbers and categories: > >IRS BUdget: 1 Billion US$ > >Sent to states 10% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 10% >Sent to medicare 17% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 17% >Executive Branch 12% of collections Allocated overhead 1 Billion * 12% > >In the illustration, we'd have to add 17% of the total cost of >operating expenses of the IRS to the overhead incurred by Medicare. Oh, I thought it was a new point. I had previously made that exact point when I said that the "button" likely cost something to push. >That would start making the actual overhead for Medicare align with >the cost items reported by insurance companies. I wonder if it would. How much money does the IRS spill in collecting it? I don't think it is a very large fraction. >Then there's all the paper provided by the GPO. And probably other >stuff as well > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 2 Dec 2006 21:00 Ken Smith wrote: > This is picking up where I left off before. I had to get to work. This > is the weekend so I have a little more time. Thanks. > In article <48fc9$4570a0a5$4fe75b2$8202(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>S: (n) axiology (the study of values and value judgments) >>>>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=axiology > ...a handy word. Along with the formalization as a study. >>>>Then: >>>> >>>><http://www.amazon.com/What-Value-Introduction-Axiology-2nd/dp/0875480772/sr=8-3/qid=1164596439/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-6419119-2470246?ie=UTF8&s=books> > There don't seem to be any reviews of it. Maybe you should go put one in. Strangest damn textbook I've ever read. :-) >>>>Will the one world government be an Islamic republic? > At one time everyone said that the communists were going to take over the > world. Well no, but Kruschev did promise to bury us. > All the same arguments made about them are coming back about > the extremist muslims. In both cases, it was said that once a country is > converted it can never convert back. In the case of communism this has > been repeatedly shown to be false. Not all that absolute. My visits to formerly communist regions yielded repeated comments by the lowest class locals that things were much better for them under communism and they'd give anything to have it back. > I expect that in the next 20 years, Iran will show the same about Islam. Iran hasn't been independent long enough for the honeymoon to be over. > This assumes that the US doesn't meddle and make it take a lot longer. > The yonger generation in Iran want their freedom. They still are muslim. > Christians of today would not be infavor of the Spanish Inquisition[1]. Well now that's not necessarily true. The Inquisition was pretty much against families of former Jews who had converted but had held on to some or many of their old practices. > I > think that we are seeing the beginnings of a changed muslim faith. Once > that is consistant with liberty may be emerging. A few rotten apples..... > [1]They would not expect it either but that is another matter. There is that. LOL > The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. > The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the > horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have > the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within > Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really > are. They remain in a medieval tribal mindset. Nothing else matters. > If you tried to create a world government where the rules came from > religion, you would have either a world war or never ending debate. Only > if you agree going in that these are "laws of men" can you agree to allow > democratic results to rule. If my bible says "God forbids the wearing of > wrist watches", having the majority disagree with me would not change my > view that it is a moral outrage. If on the other hand[1] it was merely a > voted on rule, I may disagree but I could go along to get along with no > crisis of faith. > [1] ie: The hand with the wrist watch.
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 21:02 In article <ekeqrf$8qk_001(a)s966.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ekdeha$906$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>>>So, you admit that there *is* needless paperwork. > >I would suspect there is. Identifying which pieces are needless >takes long study and very careful tweaking. It doesn't even matter why it is there. All that matters is that there is needless paper work so that we can discuss its effect on the economy. >>>Processes evolve. What once was necessary is only there because >>>deleting the step would cause more breakage; leaving the step >>>in doesn't break anything. >> >>Ok, so you *do* admit that there is needless paperwork. > >Oh, good grief. What is going on now? Every time I bring up the subject you dirvert the subject off to how processes take a long time to change etc. At one point you even claimed that the needless paper work was needed. [...] >>I don't need to identify which bit is needless. All I need is to know >>that there is needless paper work and we can go on to the subject of the >>drag it places on the economy. > >No, you can't. There you go telling me what I can't do again. I can also rub my belly while patting my head. >>> I can think >>>of some cases, where a delay is inserted in a process so that the >>>processing works more smoothly. The delay, by itself, is completely >>>unnecessary; howver, in context of the whole process, it is >>>what keeps the timing exactly correct. >> >>What in the neame of Zeus are you talking about? > >Think of a PERT chart. In some cases, you want to delay the >rate of development of one part of a project until another >piece is finished. Good lord! No, this would not be a "needless paperwork" if it had a purpose. For some reason you are avoiding talking about the economic effects by flinging up a smoke screen. [...] >>No, my assumption is correct. You have already admitted that there is >>needless paper work. > >There are also green apples. Continuing a design discussion >based on a set of incorrect specs is useless. Obviously you do not wish to discuss the economics. I don't understand why unless you already know that you have taken an incorrect position previously. I'm going to give up on this subject because it is simply a time waster. [.....] >>No, I wish to talk about filling out form 1287-B about eraser to gold >>conversion. If you fill out that form, you waste some of your time. This >>is what we are talking about. Needless paperwork is a drag on the >>economy. I said nothing about stopping a productive activity. > >So why was the form 1287-B required? If it had no use, it would >have been created because nobody would have thought of needing >a form. Go back a reread what I wrote. On second thought never mind. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 2 Dec 2006 21:06
In article <456A7E96.F0D2EF8B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >> More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a >> >> Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of >> >> State. >> > >> >Titular Head of State. >> >> Only because she's female? > >Nope. Try reading to your self out loud. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |