Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 08:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <d1417$454c9f01$4fe7327$8157(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Interestingly people like Eeyore also tend to believe that >>new drugs are simply riped off older drugs, so all is well >>in their little world. > That is what they are told. You are missing the most important > points by being in your name-calling mode of thinking. Why do > you think I'm yelling at you about this bad habit of yours? > You spend your thinking and writing time immersed in a pissing > contest rather than spending all that energy and CPU cycles > on the REAL problems. Democrats love people like you because > this kind of dialogue keeps ALL people from thinking twice. So this argument differs from mine how?
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 08:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >Do you guys not have fireplaces any more ? > >> > >> Only for show. > > > >I have 3 working ones. > > I have one that is functional. But it doesn't do anything useful. > I can't cook nor heat with it. > > >> Are you saying that it's OK to pollute the air for heating? > > > >A good stove can be 90% efficient. > > That's not good enough if you're burning wood. Why not ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 08:56 In article <gk6sk2h03pbkpa4ii4k3ufg4ell70svh9f(a)4ax.com>, Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP(a)interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote: >On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:47:39 +0000, the renowned Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> > Then you haven't read what I wrote. I think it sucks. There is >>> > no longer any delivery of services when needed. The biz has >>> > changed to specialized cut&paste with administrators assigning >>> > each page of text piecemeal. The medical practioners have become >>> > unionized and don't know it by handing all their business controls >>> > over to the government-approved bodies. >>> >>> I am guessing your experience is with HMO medical care. In >>> that case I agree. My experience is with regular non-HMO >>> insurance, and my experience has been favorable. >>> >>> I had a neighbor whose appointments with HMO specialists was >>> always 3 months in the future. His problem was the recurrence >>> of a fast growing cancer. Predictably, it got him. HMO was >>> the system he purchased, when he had other choices. He was a >>> nice guy, and I hate what happened to him, but he had >>> convinced himself he was getting the best medical care >>> available, and there was no talking him out of it. >>> >>> As best I can tell, HMO's are a parallel to Natinal Health >>> Care as it is practiced in the UK and Canada. >> >>I'd be shocked if you had to wait 3 months to see a specialist in the UK for cancer >>! >>Graham > >GP referral->oncologist-> surgery in a few weeks in Canada. That's >non-elective and lives are at stake. > >HMOs seem to combine the worst features of both systems. They appear to have done just that. Our (US) politicians keep talking about marrying a Canadian system with the HMOs. {{{{{{{{{{shudder}}}}}}}}}}**10001 /BAH
From: Eeyore on 6 Nov 2006 09:05 unsettled wrote: > PLONK Thank goodness for that ! Graham
From: unsettled on 6 Nov 2006 09:05
Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Mon, 06 Nov 06 12:16:44 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > <snip> > >>This is the first field test of governments trying to tax >>internet transactions. If it works well in this state, >>a similar tax law will become national. >> >>THINK! dammmit. >> >>/BAH > > > AFAIUI, state governments in the US have long demanded payment of > "equivalent to" sales taxes on things bought from companies with nexus > in other states (by mail, internet or whatever). They have no way of > enforcing it for individuals (so it is routinely ignored), but for > companies who must have sales tax licenses the "use tax" on taxable > items (typically on items that are not consumed in production) is > easily enforced since records must be kept to deduct the cost or to > calculate depreciation of capital cost on all corporate purchases. > > Here's some information from California: > > http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/usetaxreturn.htm > > They're just making it convenient by allowing you to report it on the > IT return, if you're so inclined. I imagine compliance rates are very > low. > > This isn't so much "taxing the internet" but equalizing taxation > between in and (completely) out-of-state businesses. It could only be > widely enforced (for individuals) if states agreed between themselves > to collect and remit taxes for other states. It will eventually happen. Government is greedy. |