in the 80's
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 12 Aug 2010 19:54 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:54:36 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:06:26 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian >> >>All I was trying to say is, notwithstanding I'm broke, if I _had_ been >>able to have a continuous income, and invest in a savings plan, it >>wouldn't be either a 401K or any other government boondoggle - maybe >>"US Savings Bonds," but probaly more like a savings account or CD. :-) > > So you're saying that because you might have made poor decisions it was better > to save nothing? No, I'm saying that because I made poor decisions that I never had anything left over to save. ;-) Thanks! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 12 Aug 2010 19:57 On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:30:34 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote: > > Hey, someone forwarded us the announcement about your systems now supporting > multiple users talking simultaneously <snip> Do you mean like on extension phones, or like in a computer chat room where everybody's input just shows up on the screen? They've had those for decades. Thanks, Rich
From: krw on 12 Aug 2010 21:20 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:44:43 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <freedom_guy(a)example.net> wrote: >On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:06:01 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:58:36 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian > >>>Well, actually, insurance is kind of a stupid bet. The only way to win >>>is to lose! >> >> That's one of the more ignorant statements you've made. You bet a >> little to make sure you retain a lot. >> >>>And mandatory _anything_ is evil and anti-American! >> >> Dunno, want to drive? Perhaps you ought to have the means to pay for >> your mistakes. > >Well, yes, of course, if I cause damage I should be held accountable. Or >I could apply common sense and what I learned in Driver Training, and my >couple years of experience, and simply not crash my car. It happens. You can't guaranty that any individual will never have a liability claim. >But forcing me, essentially at gunpoint (which is what government power >is, after all), to buy a product I neither want nor need is just plain >wrong. Ever heard of "armed robbery?" If you include "You don't have to drive", perhaps.
From: krw on 12 Aug 2010 21:23 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:57:17 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:30:34 -0700, Joel Koltner wrote: >> >> Hey, someone forwarded us the announcement about your systems now supporting >> multiple users talking simultaneously <snip> > >Do you mean like on extension phones, or like in a computer chat room >where everybody's input just shows up on the screen? It's an 2.4GHz ISM band digital intercom system intended for studios, concerts, and other production work.
From: krw on 12 Aug 2010 21:24
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:54:51 -0700, Rich Grise <richgrise(a)example.net> wrote: >On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:54:36 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:06:26 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian >>> >>>All I was trying to say is, notwithstanding I'm broke, if I _had_ been >>>able to have a continuous income, and invest in a savings plan, it >>>wouldn't be either a 401K or any other government boondoggle - maybe >>>"US Savings Bonds," but probaly more like a savings account or CD. :-) >> >> So you're saying that because you might have made poor decisions it was better >> to save nothing? > >No, I'm saying that because I made poor decisions that I never had >anything left over to save. ;-) Oh, well. Why didn't you say so? |