Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 09:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifhhp$8qk_011(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <hc-dncZvr4vbrtbYRVnyjA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eia0oe$8ss_006(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4546F871.E7AD0EB5(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>> Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >>>>> and other places in the world to ours. >>>> >>>>What !!!! >>>> >>>>Are you being funny ? >>> >>> No, he's not. There are a lot of Europeans who come to the US >>> to shop. >> >>Do you take this to imply there is a *shortage* of the goods and services >>in >>Europe? > > Yes. There is shortage of selection. Ok, you are wrong then. There is no smaller selection of goods and services in Europe than there is in the US. There are *some* areas where there are different goods / services but there is certainly no shortage of selection.
From: Spehro Pefhany on 3 Nov 2006 09:47 On Fri, 03 Nov 06 14:00:54 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <454B3D79.250DEEA6(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: >>> >> >>> >> >The last thing I'd fancy after a long flight is shopping ! >>> >> >>> >> I observed this behaviour when we went to China. Our tour >>> >> groups were upper middle class people. We arrived at the >>> >> Great Wall and the shopaholics turned left to go into the >>> >> store while we turned right to go on the Great Wall and walk >>> >> a little bit of it. These people never saw the Great Wall. >>> >> >>> >> They went half-way around the world and didn't even bother to >>> >> look at a remarkable feat of the human species. >>> > >>> >Americans ??? >>> >>> Not all were. I think this had more to do with people who had >>> new money. It was certainly a lesson to me about people who >>> don't know how work gets done. >> >>I can't imagine what goes through their minds. > >Oh, I can imagine. A good example is this thread. > >> >> >>> That part of the Wall was amazing. We climbed it and walked it. >>> JMF has fear of heights. He wanted to go on (est. angle of >>> some of walk was >45 degrees). I looked back and then had to >>> look _down_. I figured I'd have to carry him back if we went any >>> further. >> >>I'm glad you enjoyed it. >> >>My time on mainland China was really just involved with business in the >Shenzhen >>area. I'd like to see more though. > >I'm going to get up and look it up. I don't know where that >area is. It's a commuter train (subway-style) ride from Hong Kong. A SEZ just on the other side of the boundary, but it's bigger than HK now (in size and population). >>I do like Hong Kong big time though ! > >Hong Kong was a amazing when were there. I don't know how >it has changed since China took it over, though. > >/BAH It's just about ten years now! As more companies go in directly, they're losing a bit of the middleman and financial center/re status to other Chinese cities, so their growth is nowwhere near as rapid as the rest of China, but they are holding their own. The shopping there is nothing special, cheaper prices can be found in the US. Compared to more socialist places such as the US and Europe and China their taxation regime is remarkably favorable, particularly to the well-off. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:39 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eiffso$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <cAq2h.21305$TV3.15219(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> In the US we have what can only be described as an overkill >>> in residential electrical services. The minimum permitted >>> these days is 100 Amps @ 240 volts. In fact, people are >>> being forced to upgrade to that minimum by their homeowners >>> insurance. >> >>This is a fairly small factor, since relatively little heating is done by >>fuel oil--something like 5% of US households, > > I don't believe that. Gas lines aren't as common as electirc poles. I don't care what you believe. 8.1 million households use oil heat, 6.8 million of which are in the Northeast. Out of about 150 million households in the US, that's about 5 %. >>and much of that in older >>homes that can benefit from improved insulation, if the economic benefit >>is >>there. The rest is domestically supplied--either natural gas or already >>electric. Add to this the fact that much of the oil home heating will be >>taken up by natural gas, since it is much cheaper in most markets. And >>add >>to this the fact that it is in the summer, not the winter, that the >>electric >>grid is stretched to anywhere near its limit. > > No, it's not. Ours is stretched in the winter too. No, it's not. You tried to get away with this lie before, and it didn't work. In the entire time I lived in Boston, even in horrendously hot summers, there was never a brownout due to overload of the grid. Electric usage is much less in the winter than in the summer, because of air conditioning. > If everybody > goes to electric heating, there will black outs during the winter. Evidence, please. >> The need for more electric >>plants to supply the increase in electric home heating would be minimal. > > Around here there oodles of oil delivery companies. So we must > be all that 5%..which, of course, is nonsense. No, it's not. The northeast does indeed account for about 84 % of all heating oil usage. There are oodles of oil delivery trucks because each household uses about 200 gallons per month in the depth of winter. It takes a lot of trucks scurrying around all the time to supply even a fairly small number of houses heated with oil. >>> So rthe plain fact is we could easily and quickly switch >>> most free standing residences to electric heat in a big >>> hurry if the need arises. Manufacturing and distributing >>> electric baseboard or, even simpler, plenum style heating >>> elements, is trivial. Electric domestic water heaters >>> are simple devices. >> >>This is a completely negligible factor, since very little residential hot >>water comes from oil burners. It's already almost all domestically >>sourced--either electric or natural gas. > > Now study your natural gas biz. There's a problem there, too. No, there's not. It's essentially 100% North American, a very large fraction of which comes from the US. Learn some facts. >>> Automobiles form part of our consumption. There are many >>> other uses, including significant industrial consumption. >> >>Much of that is raw materials for the petrochemical industry, which cannot >>be replaced by nuclear power. Very little industrial heating is done by >>fuel oil. Mostly it's natural gas, which is already a domestic supply. > > Most of the industrial heating my Dad put in was oil, not gas. This > was pre-1970. I don't care what your stories say, your dad is/was one person. Most of industrial heating is gas. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifg97$8qk_003(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454B4204.F6B04682(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >Eeyore wrote: >>> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>> >>>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>> >>>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. >>> >> >>> >> It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. >>> > >>> >You're obviously not old enough to personally >>> >remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's. >>> > >>> Right. >> >>Wrong. I do recall it and I have the fuel vouchers to prove it. > > That was an embargo which was a reduction of production and a > selection of favored customers. I'm not talking about an embargo. > I'm thinking about scenarios where all production is stopped. > >> >> >>> And it was made worse by Nixon instituting government >>> controls which made the supply even tighter and the mob >>> psychology go into berserk mode overnight. >> >>Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? > > Yes. I don't remember all the details. Well, I would again suggest you might want to educate yourself before you make assumptions based on very, very incomplete understanding of the issues. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:43
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifgj0$8qk_005(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ZDn2h.3658$B31.603(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eicori$8qk_013(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <Ht32h.25968$7I1.23695(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eia16e$8ss_008(a)s880.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <PDp1h.23510$e66.6564(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >>>>>>news:1162219707.131372.172210(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <1162139745.736188.86580(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >> In article >>>>>>>> >> <1161875197.735056.288140(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>>> >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> [....] >>>>>>>> >> The latest edict is forcing everybody to have >>>>>>>> >> medical insurance; if you don't the rumor is that income >>>>>>>> >> tax penalties will be imposed. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >The state pays for hospitals etc for those who can't pay. They >>>>>>>> >don't >>>>>>>> >want those who can't pay dieing in the streets so they have to >>>>>>>> >fund >>>>>>>> >their medical needs. There are some people who can afford to pay >>>>>>>> >for >>>>>>>> >their own health care who choose to spunge off the system. To >>>>>>>> >discourage this, they are making those who can affort to have >>>>>>>> >insurance, but refuse to get it, pay a little extra towards the >>>>>>>> >care >>>>>>>> >of >>>>>>>> >those who can't afford it. It is a completely rational thing to >>>>>>>> >do >>>>>>>> >if >>>>>>>> >you have the state paying for those who can't. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >If you don't do this you must either cut off the medical care to >>>>>>>> >the >>>>>>>> >poor or spread the cost of it evenly between the responsible and >>>>>>>> >irresponsible. Neither of these options is better than the one >>>>>>>> >taken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Massachusetts implemented this with car insurance. It is a mess >>>>>>>> and people are trying to get rid of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Massachusetts sets the insurance rates for autos. This includes >>>>>>> mandated increases for speeders etc. The change will be to remove >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> requirement not to remove the requirement to have insurance. You >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> still be required to be responsible. If you drive a car you have to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> prepared to pay if you cause an accident. >>>>>> >>>>>>Agreed. The biggest insurance problem in Massachusetts, at least >>>>>>while >>>>>>I >>>>>>was living there, was no-fault insurance. It removes any consequences >>>>>>for >>>>>>bad driving. Every state in this nation that has it, has a complete >>>>>>nightmare on its roads, especially in the cities. If you make people >>>>>>responsible for their bad driving, they tend not to become such bad >>>>>>drivers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> They did this with sales >>>>>>>> tax and nobody, absolutely nobody, has complained. Think about >>>>>>>> a sales tax which is tied to your income level. I suspect, since >>>>>>>> nobody bitched, these Democrats have done the same thing with >>>>>>>> medical insurance. >>>>>> >>>>>>Exactly how does the cash register know how much you earn when it >>>>>>rings >>>>>>up >>>>>>the sales tax on that gallon of milk you just bought? Me smells a red >>>>>>herring. >>>>> >>>>> Go to Mass. DoR web site. Find Form 1. Look at line 33 of the >>>>> 2005 year and its instructions. >>>> >>>>Yes, as I thought, it is a red herring. That is use tax due on >>>>out-of-state >>>>purchases, calculated independent of a person's income. In no way is >>>>the >>>>amount of tax related to a person's income. Your lies are getting you >>>>nowhere. >>> >>> Did you read the instructions? In them is a precedent which >>> can be used to collect a VAT as a percentage of your income. >>> Just one little twitch of a rider on a bill in the state House >>> can change that into an additional income tax. It's been done >>> before. If you look at the form, go up a few lines and see >>> how we are allowed to "volunteer" to pay a higher income >>> tax rate. >> >>From the published instructions: >>"A 5% Massachusetts use tax is due on your taxable >> >>purchases of tangible personal property purchased >> >>for use in Massachusetts on which you >> >>did not pay Massachusetts sales or use tax." > > Very good. Now continue reading the instructions. > >> >> >>Nothing about income there. > > Pay attention to the if clause. There is paragraph that says > if you don't have records, you can opt to pay your out > of state purchases sales tax as a percentage of your income. Yes, because your consumption is generally a certain percentage of your income. In fact, this method is actually a *progressive* tax, because their consumption is usually a much larger fraction of their income than it is for the wealthy, yet they are taxed at the same percentage of their income. But it is important to remember that the *rate* of taxation of consumption is not dependent on your income, as you stated earlier. It's no worse or better than any other sales tax. Eric Lucas |