Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Oct 2006 06:50 In article <0b3qi2dnr75p2r6rrqp0t50sasceo9bcps(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 11 Oct 06 10:24:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <1qeni29rcg3tjnech3i3plskg81st638nf(a)4ax.com>, >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>On Tue, 10 Oct 06 10:03:13 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <kmnki2t5q21v3q4unpq99qqsner3pu6mhr(a)4ax.com>, >>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>On Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it >>>>>>doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it >>>>>>is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can >>>>>>get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him. >>>>>>This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that, >>>>>>there is no other option available to you for getting >>>>>>the apple you want. >>>>> >>>>>Just go to another store! That's what I do. >>>> >>>>There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other >>>>stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. >>>>competition, is allowed. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>>There's always competition. In a free-market economy, we call it >>>competition; in a communist economy, they call it corruption. Cuba, >>>for instance, has a mostly corruption-driven economy, much as the USSR >>>had. People are pretty much people. >> >>Think about it. The fact that the payoffs have to occur diminishes >>the efficiency of getting anything done. > >The Cuban and Soviet corruption was not so much payoffs (although >there's plenty of that) but diversion of public goods into market-rate >distribution. There was that. There was also the fact that, since everything had to be controlled by the Soviet government, at all paperwork of invoices and shipping and everything having to do with manufacturing had to go through Moscow. I don't know if the goods had to physically be shipped through Moscow; nobody could be this stupid but I keep getting unpleasantly surprised. > I recently read that half of the gasoline that is >supplied to Cuban gas stations is stolen and resold at market rates. >That actually helps balance the supply/demand equation, by raising the >price of scarce goods. I think, but I'm not sure, that this could only work well if the geography is small. But note that everybody who has to do this practice spends most of their thinking and productive time avoiding getting caught. Think of the production if that thinking and labor is applied to something useful? > Managing an economy is an interesting case >wherein everyone who tries it seems to have negative intelligence, in >that it works better when nobody does it. Yes. I'm trying to learn how a country works and what work is done to do this [emoticon handwaves] stuff. I was working on the Federal Reserve history and banking but my brain went into curlicues; so I'm taking a break for a while. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Oct 2006 07:02 In article <452D8AAB.63CA95F9(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> >> > You guys? >> > >> > You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >> > you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >> > you were wrong? >> >> Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some >> points against Eeyore? >> >> I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up in >> military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of the >> US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. > >The big difference is that the UK actually *wins* the wars we take on ! WWII, WWI, The American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the nameless one around 1800. Yep, you won all of those. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 08:11 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 aren't any other stores. There won't be any other > >> >> stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. > >> >> competition, is allowed. > >> > > >> >Are you really this stupid ? > >> > >> Based on your definition of stupid: Fortunately, yes. > > > >It appears that you're also suffering from a serious case of paranoia. > > I was paid very well for a long time to be 100% paranoid. I was > an expert in anticipating everything that can go wrong and how > to prevent it or minimize the damage. The fact that > you are able to post in this electronic medium is due to people > like me who did this work. That's a pretty extravagant claim. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Oct 2006 07:31 In article <452E30DC.C77C7F17(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 aren't any other stores. There won't be any other >> >> >> stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. >> >> >> competition, is allowed. >> >> > >> >> >Are you really this stupid ? >> >> >> >> Based on your definition of stupid: Fortunately, yes. >> > >> >It appears that you're also suffering from a serious case of paranoia. >> >> I was paid very well for a long time to be 100% paranoid. I was >> an expert in anticipating everything that can go wrong and how >> to prevent it or minimize the damage. The fact that >> you are able to post in this electronic medium is due to people >> like me who did this work. > >That's a pretty extravagant claim. Put in your pipe and stuff it. Perhaps you should learn who I am. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 09:06
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> In article <452BAC94.29063CCF(a)hotmail.com>, > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>Unfortunately this would require that there were ppl of vision and > >>>integrity in the White House. > >> > >> Typical European attitude. > > > >Before you go casting aspersions based on ethnicity, just remember that more > >than half of your countrymen fee the same way. > > I see. Reality is caused by what the majority people think it > should be. Last time I checked, this was 100% wrong. It used > to be called Murphy's Law. Actually, he was talking about your comment that it was a "typical European attitude". It clearly isn't since it's shared by many Americans too. Graham |