Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 3 Dec 2006 12:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <MPG.1fdb63e0b29518b4989d88(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>In article <ekrvkr$8qk_002(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> >>>In article <b59c2$4570f18a$4fe7357$10170(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>For me hex and hex were the same thing. I worked for year in >>>>>an octal environment. I'd never be able to convert to hex. >>>> >>>>In a different world it was said of one bit god, >>>>the patron saint of cpm, that "For him, assembler >>>>is a high level language." >>> >>>If you want to dabble in machine lanugage and not have to struggle >>>with binary arithmetic, play with IBM's 1620. >> >>Ah, the CADET (Can't Add, Didn't Even Try). Addressing was still >>binary, no? (long before my time) > > > I don't think it was. I never knew about binary until I met > a PDP-10. I had no idea about bases other than 10. There > were a few math problems that dealt with converting logs > in my past, but nothing was tied to reality. They were just > logic problems that were fun to do but never used. Yet you're old enough to have used a slide rule.
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 12:19 In article <9e599$45725587$4fe746f$19327(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >I always wondered how we managed to pay for WW2, The recession of the late 1940's was in part due to the cost of WW2. A lot of the work done in the 1950's was paying for the war. During WW2 the american people gave up a great deal to pay of the war. Somewhere in the combination, is the answer. > the Korean Police >Action, Viet Nam, The run away inflation of the late Nixon era was largely the result of the spending. The US ran its self into debt. When those holding the US dollars tried to cash them in, the trouble set in. The US standard of living took a big downwards step at that time. Think about the early Carter years. What comes to mind? Cold rooms in the winter, too hot in the summer, and the skipped vacation was it. > and so forth. We had to have hemmoraged money for >each of those, but our economy has always seemed worse during >longer periods of peacetime than during and right after those >episodes of heavy military spending. The economy can "seem" things that it isn't really. Military spending drives the stock market up and gives everyone a job. This makes the economy look good if you look at those numbers. If you instead look at the contents of the average household you get a different picture. During WW2, people drove the old car and used the old washing machine and didn't buy that new TV. The standard of living was on the average going down. What was being made in the factories was being destroyed on the battle field. Wealth was being consumed. There has also been a few very bad times in the economy during peace. The 1930's would be an example. If you detect the minus peaks, you get a different view of the wave form than if you detect the positive ones. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 12:41 In article <ekuiug$8ss_001(a)s896.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >>She may have just happened to have one dollars worth and this could >>have been distorted into some major issue by those opposed. > >You don't get it. No, you don't get it. What are the numbers? You have made a claim that she held futures and tried to profit by her actions in goveernment. You can come up with a figure for how much she held and you admit that basically everyone who invests in mutual funds has a bit of everything. This is the classic fuel for political distortions. > She's that kind of idiot. She has a pattern >of making choices that will cause the most troubles, especially >if they will become her troubles. That's how she behaves and that's >how she thinks. So, you claim. I don't believe you. I think she was an angel sent from on high to solve all of our problems. I know that you are a Republican and would rather die than admit that a Democrat is a good person. Like all Republicans, there is a jack in your head by which they down load the latest talking points into your brain every night. When pressed for any fact not included in the down load, you freeze up. When any of them is proven wrong you talk in a higher and higher voice until your head explodes. Now given that I know this about you, why should I take your word on Hillary's actions? >>People in government effect the value of their holdings all the time. > >There is a law that is supposed to put holdings in a blind trust >so the above doesn't happen. There was a reason that Congress >passed the law. The so called "blind trusts" aren't very blind at all. Many times it has come out that a given politician knew what they owned. Also if you went into the blind trust holding a given stock, you can assume it is still in there if no good reason is seen for it being sold. >The loop hole was that wives were not included. Or husbands. There are a lot of politicians who have the same situation. [...] >>>BTW, futures is not an investment instrument. >> >>There is an argument that they are an investment. > >No. Most futures are 3 months. That's not investing; that >is trading. No, that is a "short term investment". If I pay a farmer to plant peas for a part of the crop, that is investing. For that matter that is investing in a future. > >> >>>> >>>>I don't have any holdings in futures that I know of. If I do it woud be a >>>>very small fraction of my holdings. >>> >>>Do you have money in a mutual fund? Then you do. >> >>Note the "that I know of" > >Good grief. Don't you read the prospectus and the other reports you >get from them? I look at the Dow and at their increase. The managers get their fees for worrying about the details. I suspect that almost everyone else does the same. >>>Hedge? If you have a put or a call, you're playing exotic futures. >> >>I don't that I know of. I was pointing out a reason Hillary may. > >I also pointed out a reason Hillary may. "may" means that you can't prove "did". [....] >I have no access to a doctor. I have no intention of tempting >the Fates. There is a reason that there are exceptions to the >list of people who get the shot. Move out of that hell-hole then. You are free to leave. I assume that you are not in jail because people in jail get to see a doctor. >>Both will freeze. If you freeze milk, nothing bad happens to it. > >I thought milk separates. I have a box of powdered milk in case >things become really contagious out there. Give the container a shake after it is melted and it will be ok. > >> You >>need to be careful of the type of container it is in. > >You mean for the exansion? yes -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 12:50 In article <26e4$45722fd5$4fe757d$18514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> At one time everyone said that the communists were going to take over the >> world. > >Well no, but Kruschev did promise to bury us. Have you ever seen a team that didn't trash talk. One of the things I know about managing people is that it is far better to tell them they are on the winning team. If you can make the other side think that they are doomed, often the battle is half won. >> 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. But what of the next generation and the one to follow that. In China, at least, the folks under 30 are generally not communist and those over 60 generally are. >> 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. The honeymoon will last roughly this generation. Many of them have TV dishes hidden from view. The teenagers think America is cool. >> 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. Which part isn't true? I don't think many christians want another inquisition. > > > 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..... Those "rotten apples" are in the barrel. >> [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. Actually a great deal else matters. The fact that they can't agree among themselves makes them weak. They won't all follow any given leader. They will fight among themselves. So long as nothing unites them, the odds of them forming a world government are zero. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Dec 2006 12:55
In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [... how much medicare costs via the IRS ...] >I'll do out homework for us. LOL Thanks. :> [...] >Looks like you add ~1.067 billion to medicare expenditures as the >collections expense. That adds about 0.4% to the overhead which >is usually reported elsewhere. That increases their reported >expenses by more than 10%. It will take a lot of %10 increases to get 3% up to %20%. By pure coincidence it seems it takes 20 of them. >>>Then there's all the paper provided by the GPO. And probably other >>>stuff as well -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |