Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 06:33 In article <el278i$6qf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: <snip> >>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%. > >What? You're claiming 10% of the entire IRS budget goes to Medicare tax >collection? Absurd! It comes in electronically. What makes you think that computing and babysitting the gear and data costs no money? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 06:35 In article <el27e2$6qf$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <ekulj0$8ss_012(a)s896.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <4572475E.BA56AF16(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: >>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> >Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has >>the >>>> >> >> >same >>>> >> >> >chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>>> >> >> >capitalistic society? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >>>> >> >> motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >>>> >> >> more often than the rich kid. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. >>>> >> >>>> >> But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic >>>> >> and not socialistic. >>>> > >>>> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect >it's >>>> > just another of your fanciful folksy notions. >>>> >>>> Nope. It's fact. >>> >>>I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to date. >>All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >>got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >>worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >>side had some kind farm business before they were legal. >> >>None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. >> >>/BAH > >Teenagers buy their own homes, and "none were right -- none were even middle >class." > >There's your problem -- you have no idea of what "middle class" means. Hint: >middle-class teenagers are not able to buy their own homes. Right. Poor ones manage to do so. One of the lessons you learn when you grow up poor is how not to spend money. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 06:39 In article <457461F3.C9510941(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: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has >> >> >> >> >the same >> >> >> >> >chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >> >> >> >> >capitalistic society? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >> >> >> >> motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >> >> >> >> more often than the rich kid. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >I rather doubt that it happens like that in practice. >> >> >> >> >> >> But it happens all the time in the US, which is capitalistic >> >> >> and not socialistic. >> >> > >> >> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect it's >> >> > just another of your fanciful folksy notions. >> >> >> >> Nope. It's fact. >> > >> >I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to date. >> All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they >> got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They >> worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's >> side had some kind farm business before they were legal. >> >> None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. > >My idea of poor doesn't include owning a car or home of your own ! > >You seemt to have a very odd definition for the term. You have a socialist point of view. You seem to have to believe that, once poor, always poor. In the US this is unheard of...or was. Since the Democrats have created all their "Keep everybody poor and in their place" programs, the attitude has been changing over the last 50 years. When a majority believes that it is the government and the few rulers who have to provide for all basic means of living, the economy, politics and society have become socialist with liberal dashes of communism. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 07:00 In article <be19n2durm5lkurcfsg2r0bkstjeicccml(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Dec 06 13:46:19 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <gtk1n2lnpgh9bk0o6sn4r1v9n2pofis8bt(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:13:24 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>><snip> >>>>Opportunity is discovered by the individual, not handed to them. >>>><snip> >>> >>>Nope. That only tells me you've never been there. Spoken like a >>>person born with a silver spoon in their mouth. >>> >>>I hadn't said that being poor means there are no opportunities. A >>>smart person will recognize more of them. So being smart helps. A >>>hard working person will be better able to make more of them. So >>>being hard working helps. But wealth is a far bigger advantage for >>>success than is being poor. >>> >>>Control over capital and people creates opportunities and defends >>>against feeling the fuller brunt of mistakes made in learning from >>>them. >>> >>>It would seem that you'd argue being poor is an advantage, too. If it >>>weren't so patently laughable, I'd even imagine you actually believed >>>it. >> >>Being poor is an advantage only if you use what you have learned >>to make stuff. >> >>Being rich is an advantage only if you use what you have learned >>to make stuff. > >This kind of comment almost makes me certain you are just being >disingenuous, or worse. It is possible you don't even understand and >can't. Could it be possible that I might understand very well but you don't understand the meaning of what I write? I do not write clearly, IMO. > But it is so hard to understand for me that you can dare to >try and say such things so craftily, with a design to imply that such >circumstances are no better than each other, unless you are being >disingenuous and worse. I am trying to convey the fact that it doesn't matter how much money anybody has if it's pissed away. People who don't have much money usually know how to spend efficiently. Those who do have pots of money sometimes use it to create wealth. The side effect of this is the so-called poor get jobs and they begin to accumulate wealth. That's simply how capitalism works. > >I had written much more just now, born of my own personal history and >those I've worked with in other countries, but I deleted it since it's >not worth adding under the circumstances. You aren't even trying to >argue your point, just stating it. So that pretty much means this >conversation is ended. You and I have a very different mindset. I've been considering how they differ. At the moment, I'm thinking it may be ethnic. I come from a background of people who couldn't wait for permission to fix what's broke. They also have a long history of trading. They were Dutch. Some of that mindset trickled down through generations to my folks who taught us. I am not, what you call, compassionate. Consider a man who is crippled but lived near a river. I would make a fishing pole in front of him so he would know how to make one. I would then have him clear a path to the river and show him how to catch fish for his dinner. I would not do any of the work for him but have him do it all. That is the only way he will be able to eat after I, or anybody, leaves. He, in turn, can teach another neighbor how to make the tools and get dinner. I think, in your view, having the cripple do all the work is not compassionate. In my view, doing all the work for the cripple is cruel because when I am no longer there, the cripple is immediately back to the original state of starving. That's a difference between your mindset and mine. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Dec 2006 07:08
In article <45742D04.D281D5CD(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: >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> There are people who like to think. That's one way to do so. >> >> > >> >> >There's plenty of others more useful and rewarding. >> >> >> >> Not if you enjoy coding, debugging, and making the iron >> >> run through your hoops. >> > >> >I'm used to doing that too. >> > >> >Assembler isn't the only way you know. >> >> Ah, but with assembler, you know exactly what you get to >> tell the machine exactly what to do. With HLLs, somebody >> else's code interprets yours and then they get to tell >> the machine what you may have written. > >This is pefectly true of course but I'm entirely happy with the results I've >had. I know. That's not a sin :-). However, you depend on people like me. OTOH, the kind coding you enjoy would bore us to tears. > I'm no fan of C either btw for the kind of microcontroller programming I >do. C is a compiler that was never meant to be declared as the Only True Language. Unfortunately, there are ideologues who teach computer science courses who are stupid and have no idea what goes on in the real world and, apparently, latched onto the C lanugage as for their banner slogan. In my company, we had a person who also declared that an X was the One True Lanugage. IOW, he insisted that all engines be jet engines, including lawn mowers. For those of you who have trouble thinking logically, this means that, if all lawn mowers have jet engines, not a single lawn will get mowed. /BAH |