Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Dec 2006 09:11 In article <slrneodfnq.dti.don(a)manx.misty.com>, don(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >In article <e91ca$4586b366$49ecfaf$10575(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled wrote: >>> >>> This is what is wrong with our system at the moment. Those >>> politicians are not our leaders; they are our employees. The >>> fact that you consider them "leaders" is a bug in the system. >>> It implies that you hand over your control to those few. >> >>Try instructing your employees to balance the budget. > > Yes, but too many of my fellow bosses of these employees are saying the >opposite - gimme pork, gimme mine, but cut my taxes! And the employees >actually obey that all too much! They do the gimmes but taxes aren't cut. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Dec 2006 09:13 In article <d4c64$45888c14$4fe7326$22873(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <e91ca$4586b366$49ecfaf$10575(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <8536b$458563f7$4fe75c5$3024(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:45851079.D2420CDC(a)hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>>>Without heading down the road of a conspiracy theory here, I am not sure >>>>>>what you are going on about. Climate science is as rigourous a discipline >>>> >>>>as >>>> >>>> >>>>>>anything else. They have peer reviewed journals and everything. >>>>> >>>>>Climate science is barely off the ground flapping its wings as >>>>>hard as it can to get airborne, but still needing an occasional >>>>>hard placed kick to get as far as it has. >>>>> >>>>>Weather, its sister science, discovered and submitted the first >>>>>formalization of Chaos theory. Note especially the butterfly >>>>>effect. I suggest that climate is a long term serial study of >>>>>weather. I don't think we can combine enough data from >>>>>weather to see any reasonable long term forecast for climate. >>>>> >>>>>Do a google search for (use the quotes) "mini ice age". >>>>> >>>>>I'll stick my neck out here again and state that politicians >>>>>and the rest of the great unwashed don't begin to contemplate >>>>>nonlinearity, let alone its place in causality. The problem >>>>>is that every time politicians get together to fix something >>>>>it invariably takes more money out of the public pocket one >>>>>way or another, and usually the goals are not achieved so >>>>>another even more expensive round of fixes is called for. >>>>> >>>>>In primitive societies, the strongest got to rule. In earlier >>>>>times leadership was arranged "by the grace of God" LOL. Today >>>>>it is supposed to have some relationship to the capacity of the >>>>>leaders to take us in the right direction, perhaps based on >>>>>mental prowess, however it seems to be the best liars who >>>>>usually get into office these days. >>>> >>>> >>>>This is what is wrong with our system at the moment. Those >>>>politicians are not our leaders; they are our employees. The >>>>fact that you consider them "leaders" is a bug in the system. >>>>It implies that you hand over your control to those few. >>> >>> >>>Try instructing your employees to balance the budget. >> >> >> There is no incentive to balance budgets if the voters >> keep giving them unlimited spending money. > >Referring to your statement directly above "It implies >that you hand over your control to those few." it now >appears that you now agree that the politicians are >in control. I never saw an actual line on a ballot >relaying to politicians what they're allowed to spend. >Have you? Yes. What has been happening in Mass. is that these politicians are not honoring the tax mandates we've given them. Only time will tell, if our newly elected governor fulfills his promise and completely eliminates the property tax mandate we passed 20? years ago. /BAH > >>>>>These things being said, I don't have any faith in the so >>>>>called solutions will ever actually have anything to do >>>>>with global warming if the problem itself 1) really >>>>>exists and 2) is solvable by combined human action. >>>>> >>>>>What we have is a pseudoscientific political argument about >>>>>a pseudoscientific issue. Business as usual, I say. >>>>> >>>>>What makes personal economic sense, regardless of worldwide >>>>>implications, is to reduce consumption. We've done that in >>>>>my lifetime. Compare the most commonly owned automobiles >>>>>today to those of 50 years ago both in materials used in >>>>>manufacture as well as fuel consumption and replacement >>>>>period. 50 years ago I don't recall many cars getting over >>>>>100,000 miles of use before they were recycled. >>>> >>>> >>>>I do. People were able to own cars for decades and still >>>>expect them to function and be maintained. >>> >>>With no high speed interstate system in place people simply >>>didn't drive as much as today. > >> Yes they did. Why are you equating high speeds with distances >> traveled on land? They didn't go to foreign countries but they >> certainly drove to other states. You might try to trace how >> goods were disbursed. Pay attention to coal, seed, etc. >> You also need to count the miles a tractor was driven before >> it was junked. > >So you've jumped subjects from "people driving" to the >distribution of goods. Don't forget there was a significant >transition after WW2 from railroad distribution to roadway >distribution systems. That transition closely followed the >implementation of Eisenhower's Interstate Roads system. > >If you ever get a wanderust get into a car and follow as >much of the old Boston Post Road as still exists between >Boston and New York City. You'll be amazed at how awful >it used to be. It also has another name, US1. > >I traveled from NYC to Atlanta many a time before the >Interstates shortened the trip. I *know* what those >roads were like. > >>>Own for decades, sure. Drive >>>over 100K miles, not so much. Change oil and filter religiously >>>every 1000 miles in order to achieve 100K, sure. > >> I saw my Dad's 1954 Ford odometer turn 200K. > >How many engine changes/overhauls? 1954 was the first year >Ford even had an overhead valve engine. Except for the >lighter body panels and the updated engine, it was the >same car they built from 1949 through the late 1950's. >I owned a couple of 1954 Ford wagons and a 1954 Mercury >sedan. None of them saw it past 100K miles. > >>>In 1952 my neighbor sold his 1936 Rockne. It had 76,000 miles >>>on it, and that's with him diving the mile and a half to work >>>every day for years. > >> Then he wasn't in a commercial business that required driving. > >Nope, he worked as an electrician at a research facility. > >>>Not only was the oil changed religiously >>>but he painted it every 3rd year using a brush and a good >>>grade of flat enamel. > >>>He sold it to a local kid for $200. It lasted 6 months. > >> You grew up in a city. > >I expect you would say so because you grew up on a farm. >I grew up in a little settlement surrounded by farmland >and farms. > >>>>>Today folks >>>>>pay good money for cars exceeding 100K because we're heading >>>>>for 200K life. The above is generally true for most manufactured >>>>>durable goods. > >>>>People buy cars with no expectation of using them for decades. >>>>They are buying items that have to be expensed and can't really >>>>be considered capital. >>> >>>Its been a long time since I've lived someplace where they >>>don't rust away faster than they wear our. >>> >>>The poor always pay more buy buying the most troubled period >>>of cars. But the fact there is usefulness in a car double >>>its life 40-50 years ago remains astonishing to me. > >> It was nothing to keep a car going 50 years ago. I could >> do that work. > >Maybe then you could, though I doubt even then you had the >muscle to remove or torque head bolts during a rebuild. > >> Today's engines are never rebuilt. > >Sure they are, but the cheapest replacement is a Jasper >short block. > >check this out: > >http://www.aftermarket.org/erc/Engine_Repower.asp > >Notice who the Chairman is. > > > There >> were dozens of places when I was growing that were in >> the business of rebuilding engines and lived doing that work. > >Given the rebuilding industry of today it is a better deal >to let the professionals do it, with warranty. Local Joe >makes out better doing the swap outs without having to >buy all the tools, dedicated shop space, and so forth. > >My son had a local shop in another state do a complete >overhaul on a volvo engine. He'd have come out way >ahead buying a long block from anywhere. > >I have vintage (1950's 1960's) agricultural tractors >today that were rebuilt by the local machine shop. Of >course he's the only facility with his capabilities for >about 90 miles in any direction. > >He'll replace a modern automotive engine, if necessary, >but use a factory rebuilt rather than get involved with >those. > >It is a mixed bag today, based more on what makes >economic sense than the availability of the skills >to do the work. > >The following captivated my funny bone. > >"Just like realpolitik, there should be something >called "realeconomik"-- the compromises you have >to make in order to remain in power and do some >of the things dear to you." > >http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/jul/29guest1.htm >
From: unsettled on 20 Dec 2006 10:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: snip > Yes. What has been happening in Mass. is that these politicians > are not honoring the tax mandates we've given them. Only > time will tell, if our newly elected governor fulfills his > promise and completely eliminates the property tax mandate > we passed 20? years ago. > > /BAH Sounds like they're leading instead of being obedient employees. Realpolitik.
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Dec 2006 10:32 In article <d3c19$4589532d$49ecf11$27638(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >snip > >> Yes. What has been happening in Mass. is that these politicians >> are not honoring the tax mandates we've given them. Only >> time will tell, if our newly elected governor fulfills his >> promise and completely eliminates the property tax mandate >> we passed 20? years ago. >> >> /BAH > >Sounds like they're leading instead of being obedient employees. No. They are going off into a different direction. There is no leading involved. > >Realpolitik. At some point, it will blow up. At the moment, people have too much money to care enough. /BAH >
From: unsettled on 20 Dec 2006 11:17
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <d3c19$4589532d$49ecf11$27638(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>snip >> >> >>>Yes. What has been happening in Mass. is that these politicians >>>are not honoring the tax mandates we've given them. Only >>>time will tell, if our newly elected governor fulfills his >>>promise and completely eliminates the property tax mandate >>>we passed 20? years ago. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>Sounds like they're leading instead of being obedient employees. > > > No. They are going off into a different direction. There is no > leading involved. <grin> >>Realpolitik. > > > At some point, it will blow up. At the moment, people have too much > money to care enough. > > /BAH > > |