Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 09:29 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:f0388$454cd13f$4fe7077$10025(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:454CAD3B.FF177A12(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>But then they tout their "free" national health care. Heck, >>>>>they're too poor after paying all their taxes to be able >>>>>to afford much of anything, >>>> >>>>LOL. UK incomes aren't that much less than US. >>> >>> >>>Although "debating" with unsettled is akin to banging your head against a >>>wall, I found some numbers out. >>> >>>Average US Salary in 2002 was $36,764 (Source: >>>http://ask.yahoo.com/20040518.html), although the odd way they do things >>>makes it hard to determine. One source suggests this has dropped >>>(http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm) >>>or increased (depending how you read it), but it seems reasonable to >>>suggest the average US income is $43,200 in 2004. >> >>Of course this doesn't cover any "off the books" >>income. >> >> >>>In the UK the average income >>>(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2006/2006_all_employees.pdf) >>>is about ?21,476 per year. >>> >>>Now $43,200 is about ?22600 so the difference in pay is pretty small to >>>say the least. >>> >>>One of the problems with this conversion though, is the US figure >>>includes income from stocks, bonds, savings and the like while the UK one >>>is just salary. >> >>Are you telling us that the numbers are an estimate? >> >> >>>>>and in the end they're paying >>>>>more for health care than we do, >>>> >>>>Let's see some numbers then ! I'm all for seeing a fair comparison ! >>> >>> >>>They certainly do not bear out unsettled's claims. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>but it isn't visible to >>>>>them because the money trail is through government. >>>> >>>>?76.4 bn according to recent figures. That's ?1273 per head of >>>>population. >>>> >>>>What are your numbers ? >>>> >>>>Can you get US comprehensive ( no exclusions ) medical insurance for >>>>$2418 >>>>regardless of age or medical history ? >>> >>> >>>While it was far from easy getting information and answers about this, >>>nothing I found suggested it was possible. >> >>I pay a little less than $2K per annum with copays for >>medicines. I pay extra when I receive uncovered services, >>such as $50 for a 5 hour mobile blood pressure monitoring >>study. > > > And I suppose you consider the premiums on your insurance, > woever pays them, to be free? That's an idiotic conclusion with no validity whatever. Earlier you accuesed me of ducking the question altogether. And you accuse those who favor a nationalized system of > being blind to the actual cost of health care? For me the costs are out of pocket, and reasonable. OTOH you're the sort who can't find his own nose using both hands.
From: Eeyore on 5 Nov 2006 09:39 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: > >> >> > >> >> >Have you already forgotten the reason for the Arab Embargo ? > >> >> > >> >> Yes. I don't remember all the details. > >> > > >> >It was because of western backing of Israel. Sound familiar ? Truth is > >> >that Israel is the number one messmaker in the region. > >> > >> Which action? > > > >Action ? I didn't say action, I said *backing* ! Read what I wrote again. > > So you imagine that the Arabs put a bunch dates in a hat, picked > one and said this the date we start our embargo? These people > are not stupid. Do you ascribe any special importance to the date ? > >> WAs this the time when fUSSR almost gained control > >> of whole air space over the Suez Canal? > > > >What *ARE* you talking about now ?????? !!!!!!! I think you've got some > >wires crossed. > > I'm talking about events that actually happened. In some social > circles, this is called history. You apparently are missing > some knowledge of what has happened in the recent past. Are you getting confused with the British / French / Israeli invasion of the Suez canal area ? Graham
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 09:44 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:f15b$454d345f$4fe4d07$12623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:15e6a$454cbf2e$4fe7077$9345(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>krw wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <GRH2h.485$Mw.139(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:eifcgg$8qk_001(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes, Medicare and Medicaid in the US. If these two programs which >>>>>>>are single payer don't work, why would making them be the only >>>>>>>insurance payer in the country work? For that matter, why should >>>>>>>we allow medical insurance payouts be a federal responsibility? That >>>>>>>is undermining our Constitution by transferring power to the federal >>>>>>>government rather than keeping it in each State. >>>>>> >>>>>>What part of "provide for the general welfare" do you not understand? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Perhaps you want to read what the founding fathers thought it meant. >>>>>Hint: I has nothing to do with what we call "welfare". >>>> >>>>Try common weal, sometimes commonweal. >>>> >>>>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=commonweal >>> >>> >>>Yes. And you don't think that the health of its citizens is a major part >>>of the "common good". If it isn't, then exactly what *does* it refer to? >> >>I'm sory to note you have difficulty with the ordinary >>English language and simple logic. >> >>Pull up the URL and read it. It isn't my definition, >>it is an accepted one reported by Princeton University. > > > I don't want to hear what PU has to say about it. I want to hear what *you* > have to say about it. In your own words, now. Are you some sort of control freak or are you just really thick. I gave you a web page I agree with beccause it is the accepted definition.
From: unsettled on 5 Nov 2006 09:50 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message. >>> >>>>In article <454B8F8F.58262328(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>There never have been any restrictions on what you can buy since rationing >>>> >>>>>from WW2 ended in the 50s. >>>> >>>>It didn't end in the UK. Thatcher was still removing vestiges of >>>>WWII price and labor controls when she was PM. >>> >>>You might actually want to listen to the citizens of the UK in this >>>discussion for this data. They know what they're talking about--you appear >>>not to. Or did you read in one of your books that there was rationing in >>>the UK more recently than the 50s? Your assumptions again need a huge dose >>>of actual data. >>> >>> >>>>>You're a funny old girl you know ! >>>> >>>>Once in a great while I'm funny. However, I'm old all the time. >>> >>>That would go a long way to explain your odd worldview, and your inability >>>to change it by incorporating data that contradict your assumptions. >> >>The really nice thing about experience is that eventually >>you'll become more like BAH than you realize. I'm old >>enough, and experienced enough, to laugh at you now. > > > Really ? > > As the years have passed I've found I'm actually more open to new ideas. What does your reply have to do with what I wrote?
From: krw on 5 Nov 2006 09:52
In article <cXd3h.4612$7F3.309(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fb72b7115bb9813989a96(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <RZ93h.4899$B31.3455(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> > >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.1fb6811853307b0989a87(a)news.individual.net... > >> > In article <zRz2h.4036$B31.709(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> >> > >> >> "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > >> >> news:iualk291t97f8404q1sh653htevg49g4s6(a)4ax.com... > >> >> > On 2 Nov 2006 18:23:32 -0800, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> Gave > >> >> > us: > >> >> > > >> >> >>He is right. The new drug can't be the exact same chemical as the > >> >> >>old > >> >> >>one... > >> >> > > >> >> > Bullshit. Patents get RENEWED BEFORE they expire. > >> >> > >> >> Where did you get *that* silly idea??? You might just want to go back > >> >> to > >> >> insults--at least you understand those. > >> >> > >> > Actually, he's right (patents do need to be renewed) but this fact > >> > is irrelevant to the discussion. > >> > >> Once a patent reaches an age of 17 years (in the US; 20 in the rest of > >> the > >> world), it expires. Period. > > > > Nope. Perhaps you want to learn something. > > I've been working in the chemical industry for 15 years, and have written > several patents, a couple of which have subsequently abandoned because the > company chose not to pursue the technology. I know how they work, thank > you. As long as you're into puffery... I've been in the computer biz for over 32 years. I guess you need to work a little longer. ;-) > > Patents in the US are > > for a *MAXIMUM* of 20 years from the date of filing, > > No. In the US, they are valid for 17 years from the date the PTO grants > them. I thought you said you knew something about patents. They now expire 20 years from the date of filing. This change was made in the early '90s, IIRC, to circumvent "submarine patents". http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent "Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States..." > I believe the rest of the world is first-to-file, and has 20 year > terms. About 10 years ago, the PTO talked about aligning US patent law with > the rest of the world, but they never did. In any case, that's not > inconsistent with what I said. I'm not sure about the status of "first to file" but AIUI it's pretty much the standard too. I got bit by this one (damned lawyers). > > but have to be > > renewed or abandoned several times within that 20 year period > > (every five years, IIRC). They *must* be renewed to last the 20 > > years. > > > >> Nothing you do can extend that. Are you > >> talking about renewing your maintenance fees? > > > > Sure. You pay up or the patent is abandoned. Isnt' this a > > "renewal"? > > Not especially, but I accept that it could be viewed that way. Most people > that I've worked with (including our patent attorneys) didn't speak of that > as "renewing the patent", but simply as "paying the maintenance fees". In > any case, that wasn't what JoeBloe appeared to be implying.... It's still functionally a renewal. Don't file the paperwork at 3 1/2, 7 1/2 and 11 1/2 years and pay the money, you lose. > >> That is not renewing the patent, and as you say, irrelevant. The sense > >> in > >> which he was talking about "renewing" sounded like a conflation with the > >> system of copyrights and trademarks, which are indeed indefinitely > >> renewable. > > > > ...only when congress extends it. > > No, it's the purview of the PTO. Congress doesn't have time to worry about > each of the hundreds of thousands of current copyrights and trademarks. Congress determines the length of protection for all IP. While trademarks are forever (as long as they are maintained) copyrights are enforceable 70 years after the death of the author (not indefinitely). -- Keith |