$640.00 to fill the tanks...

[Jay Honeck]

Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.

Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?

Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily, for
free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bret Ludwig]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
> retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
> know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
> off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
>
> Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?



Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway. So let's look at the whole
picture.

[David Wright]

> Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
> an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
> college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
> of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
> go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway.


Accurate, yes. That level of education is based on ability, rather than
ability to pay - and if your ability isn't up to scratch, you can delay a
couple of years and go in as a "mature" student, where - apart from the real
top levels of academia - you can be reasonably selective what and where to
study. You can even do it full/part time from home (normally online) and get
the same recognised degrees.

Now, to bring it back on topic, a JAA PPL gained in the UK costs around
$8500 US equivalent, and an ATPL around $110,000 US - how's that for value,
ha ha ha.

D.

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?

So now you know why Thielert was founded.

[Bret Ludwig]

David Wright wrote:
> > Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
> > an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
> > college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
> > of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
> > go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway.
>
>
> Accurate, yes. That level of education is based on ability, rather than
> ability to pay - and if your ability isn't up to scratch, you can delay a
> couple of years and go in as a "mature" student, where - apart from the real
> top levels of academia - you can be reasonably selective what and where to
> study. You can even do it full/part time from home (normally online) and get
> the same recognised degrees.
>
> Now, to bring it back on topic, a JAA PPL gained in the UK costs around
> $8500 US equivalent, and an ATPL around $110,000 US - how's that for value,
> ha ha ha.


Yes, but fuel isn't most of that. And if it weren't for taxes fuel
there would cost what fuel here does. OTOH they have effective
passenger rail transport, we don't.

[Don Tuite]

On 16 Aug 2006 08:06:31 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>David Wright wrote:
>> > Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
>> > an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
>> > college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
>> > of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
>> > go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway.
>>
>>
>> Accurate, yes. That level of education is based on ability, rather than
>> ability to pay - and if your ability isn't up to scratch, you can delay a
>> couple of years and go in as a "mature" student, where - apart from the real
>> top levels of academia - you can be reasonably selective what and where to
>> study. You can even do it full/part time from home (normally online) and get
>> the same recognised degrees.
>>
>> Now, to bring it back on topic, a JAA PPL gained in the UK costs around
>> $8500 US equivalent, and an ATPL around $110,000 US - how's that for value,
>> ha ha ha.
>
>
> Yes, but fuel isn't most of that. And if it weren't for taxes fuel
>there would cost what fuel here does. OTOH they have effective
>passenger rail transport, we don't.

Unless things have changed drastically since I was in the UK last
September British Rail is very expensive and the service sucks. I.e.,
hundreds of Euros to travel from Reading to Swansea. Coach was about
30 Euros. Flying anywhere in the British Isles was very cheap, as
long as you could avoid Heathrow and Shannon.

Don

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:49:24 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

Pounds. I meant Pounds. Which were $2.13 at the time.
>
>Unless things have changed drastically since I was in the UK last
>September British Rail is very expensive and the service sucks. I.e.,
>hundreds of Euros to travel from Reading to Swansea. Coach was about
>30 Euros. Flying anywhere in the British Isles was very cheap, as
>long as you could avoid Heathrow and Shannon.
>
>Don

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
> > retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
> > know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
> > off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
> >
> > Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> > registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
>
>
>
> Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
> an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
> college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
> of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
> go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway. So let's look at the whole
> picture.

And don't forget all the Americans who cannot afford to fly because of
medical bills.

[David Wright]

> Yes, but fuel isn't most of that. And if it weren't for taxes fuel
> there would cost what fuel here does. OTOH they have effective
> passenger rail transport, we don't.
>

Less of the here and there, I'm in the UK!

No, we don't have effective passenger rail transport ;)

It takes 5 hours to travel from London to Edinburgh by train, at a cost of
around £80 ($160). Whereas, book early enough, and you can fly from London
Luton (about 30 miles out of London) to Edinburgh with low cost carrier
easyJet.com for around £20 ($40) in just under 50 minutes.

Not a journey I make regularly, but have done it once or twice - only got
the train last time because the plane was cancelled - still, had plenty of
time to sit around and think about it... Okay, I jest - the trains are
good - but only because the entire country is small enough to drive from one
end to the other in about 14 hours, and from one side to the other in about
6 - that makes train journeys sensible in a lot of scenarios where flights
and cars just are pointless.

Oh, and the Pilot magazines here have more adverts in for people to do their
PPL in the USA (and, increasingly, Spain and South Africa) than they do
adverts for UK PPL training - it's about half the cost in the USA, I reckon.

D.

[David Wright]

> British Rail is very expensive and


...and no longer exists?

Of course, since privitisation, anyone can buy rolling stock and pay to run
trains on the track infrastructure. So the main train company in the UK is
Virgin Trains, yes - they of the Virgin Atlantic planes fame.

Since privitisation, prices have gone up and punctuality and customer
service have gone down. There are calls to re-nationalise the railways, and
a damn good idea too.

D.

[Kingfish]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
> retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
> know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
> off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
>
> Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?

Hmmmph.. I guess I can't bitch about a $400 fuel bill to top the Lance
(90 gal)... But of course I still will <g>

[Jay Honeck]

> > Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> > registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
>
> So now you know why Thielert was founded.

Right. Of course, in the US, Jet-A (diesel) is just about the same
price, or even a bit higher, than avgas.

Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
engineering. It's also why Thielert hasn't gained any traction here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
> an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
> college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
> of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
> go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway. So let's look at the whole
> picture.

We have the same system in California (CSU system). We actually have
another system as well for the not-so-smart kids (the Community College
System).

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>> And don't forget all the Americans who cannot afford to fly because of
> medical bills.

But, just like Europe, no one in the United States is denied required
medical treatment (Medicaid).

-Robert

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"David Wright" > wrote in message
...
>> British Rail is very expensive and
>
>
> ..and no longer exists?
>
> Of course, since privitisation, anyone can buy rolling stock and pay to
> run trains on the track infrastructure. So the main train company in the
> UK is Virgin Trains, yes - they of the Virgin Atlantic planes fame.
>
> Since privitisation, prices have gone up and punctuality and customer
> service have gone down. There are calls to re-nationalise the railways,
> and a damn good idea too.
>
> D.
>
>

You know, if Sir Richard buys any thing else in the UK they might as well
make him King.

[RST Engineering]

I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at Sierra
Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart ones go to the CCS
to get their lower division classes at $24 a semester unit and, upon
graduation with a B average, a guaranteed slot in either the CSU or UC
system for their upper division and graduate work.

Jim





"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...


>
> We have the same system in California (CSU system). We actually have
> another system as well for the not-so-smart kids (the Community College
> System).
>
> -Robert
>

[Doug[_1_]]

High gas prices make no difference to me. I put the same amount in just
like before...... $100 worth!!!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> Pretty sad. But consider also the thousands of Americans that don't own
>> an airplane ostensibly because they are "saving for their children's
>> college education". I don't know about the UK specifically but in most
>> of Europe, if your kids really are smart enough for college, they can
>> go, and if they aren't they won't be anyway. So let's look at the whole
>> picture.
>
> We have the same system in California (CSU system). We actually have
> another system as well for the not-so-smart kids (the Community College
> System).
>
> -Robert
>

There is very little reason that a smart or at least not stupid youngster in
the USA can't go to college. They may not be able to go to an Ivy League
school or even a major university but between community colleges and small
state schools affordable education is available.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >> And don't forget all the Americans who cannot afford to fly because of
> > medical bills.
>
> But, just like Europe, no one in the United States is denied required
> medical treatment (Medicaid).
>
> -Robert


Show me who qualifies for medicaid and can afford to fly at the same
time.

[Jay Honeck]

> Show me who qualifies for medicaid and can afford to fly at the same
> time.

Um, isn't that as it should be?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[george]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
> retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
> know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
> off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
>
> Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
>
> Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
> hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily, for
> free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...

Petrol here is $7.92 (NZ) per gallon.
AFAIK we don't have any Pathfinders :-)

[.Blueskies.]

"george" > wrote in message ps.com...
:
: Jay Honeck wrote:
: > Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
: > retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
: > know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
: > off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
: >
: > Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
: > registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
: >
: > Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
: > hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily, for
: > free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...
:
: Petrol here is $7.92 (NZ) per gallon.
: AFAIK we don't have any Pathfinders :-)
:

Are those Imperial gallons or are they US gallons?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
m...
>
> "george" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> :
> : Jay Honeck wrote:
> : > Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
> : > retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
> : > know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
> : > off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
> : >
> : > Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> : > registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
> : >
> : > Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
> : > hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily,
> for
> : > free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...
> :
> : Petrol here is $7.92 (NZ) per gallon.
> : AFAIK we don't have any Pathfinders :-)
> :
>
> Are those Imperial gallons or are they US gallons?
>
>

Yeah, and how much is that in real money? :)

[Tony Cox]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "george" > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> > :
> > : Petrol here is $7.92 (NZ) per gallon.
> > : AFAIK we don't have any Pathfinders :-)
> > :
> >
> > Are those Imperial gallons or are they US gallons?
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, and how much is that in real money? :)

Why, that'll be 0.88 euro/liter ;-)

[Ken Finney]

"george" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
>> retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
>> know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
>> off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
>>
>> Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
>> registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
>>
>> Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
>> hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily, for
>> free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...
>
> Petrol here is $7.92 (NZ) per gallon.
> AFAIK we don't have any Pathfinders :-)
>

Off topic, but what is the price of diesel fuel in Kiwi land, and is
biodiesel getting popular there?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:47:54 +0100, "David Wright"
> wrote:
> Okay, I jest - the trains are good - but only because
> the entire country is small enough to drive from one
> end to the other in about 14 hours, and from one side
> to the other in about 6

Damn, it takes about 15 hours just to drive across Texas... And about
18 hours to drive the length of the state... Both are about 900 miles,
but the driving the length of the state involves a few more
non-interstate type roads...

[Robert M. Gary]

> Show me who qualifies for medicaid and can afford to fly at the same
> time.

If you can afford to fly, you are paying for your health care whether
you live in the U.S. or in Europe. In Europe you give the gov't money
to pay for your healthcare, in the U.S. you give the insurance company
money to pay for your healthcare.
In both cases, if you don't have money, the gov't picks up the tab.
-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at Sierra
> Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart ones go to the CCS
> to get their lower division classes at $24 a semester unit and, upon
> graduation with a B average, a guaranteed slot in either the CSU or UC
> system for their upper division and graduate work.

True. But that aside, the fact is if you are not able to get accepted
to a university, the community college system will take you.

-Robert

[Emily[_1_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at Sierra
> Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart ones go to the CCS
> to get their lower division classes at $24 a semester unit and, upon
> graduation with a B average, a

Oh, so smart ones don't just hop right into a university out of high
school? That's a bizarre way of thinking, but if it makes the community
college people feel better, it's ok, I guess.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Right. Of course, in the US, Jet-A (diesel) is just about the same
> price, or even a bit higher, than avgas.
>
> Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
> engineering. It's also why Thielert hasn't gained any traction here.

How do you come to that conclusion? Jet fuel is lower on the distillation
scale, and should be easier to distill from oil, and get a bit more per
barrel than Avgas. Add to that economy of scale, and it should be much less
expensive.
--
Jim in NC

[RST Engineering]

We are bound by state law to take everybody from the class valedictorian to
the functionally illiterate that still get a high school diploma.

Jim


> True. But that aside, the fact is if you are not able to get accepted
> to a university, the community college system will take you.
>
> -Robert
>

[RST Engineering]

Why is it bizarre? Take a look at statewide stats and you will find that
folks transferring out of 2 year institutions into 4 year schools do better
grade point wise than those going straight into 4 year schools out of high
school.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't trade my 4 years at San Diego State for
anything, but when somebody asks me to name the best four teachers I had in
college, three of the four come from Grossmost Community College and one
from San Diego State.

Jim

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..

>
> Oh, so smart ones don't just hop right into a university out of high
> school? That's a bizarre way of thinking, but if it makes the community
> college people feel better, it's ok, I guess.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:43:57 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>RST Engineering wrote:
>> I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at Sierra
>> Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart ones go to the CCS
>> to get their lower division classes at $24 a semester unit and, upon
>> graduation with a B average, a
>
>Oh, so smart ones don't just hop right into a university out of high
>school? That's a bizarre way of thinking, but if it makes the community
>college people feel better, it's ok, I guess.

Well, either way, you can graduate with a degree from UC Berkeley, but
one way you saved $40,000. I think that's what Jim meant by
"smarter."

Don

[george]

..Blueskies. wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message ps.com...
> :
> : Jay Honeck wrote:
> : > Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
> : > retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
> : > know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
> : > off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
> : >
> : > Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> : > registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
> : >
> : > Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
> : > hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily, for
> : > free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...
> :
> : Petrol here is $7.92 (NZ) per gallon.
> : AFAIK we don't have any Pathfinders :-)
> :
>
> Are those Imperial gallons or are they US gallons?

The translation was litres to Imperial gallons.
Is there any other sort :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at Sierra
>> Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart ones go to
>> the CCS to get their lower division classes at $24 a semester unit
>> and, upon graduation with a B average, a
>
>
> Oh, so smart ones don't just hop right into a university out of high
> school? That's a bizarre way of thinking, but if it makes the community
> college people feel better, it's ok, I guess.

Well, it takes money in addition to smarts to attend the expensive schools.

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:43:57 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>> I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at Sierra
>>> Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart ones go to the CCS
>>> to get their lower division classes at $24 a semester unit and, upon
>>> graduation with a B average, a
>> Oh, so smart ones don't just hop right into a university out of high
>> school? That's a bizarre way of thinking, but if it makes the community
>> college people feel better, it's ok, I guess.
>
> Well, either way, you can graduate with a degree from UC Berkeley, but
> one way you saved $40,000. I think that's what Jim meant by
> "smarter."

Who says that a person who went to a university for four years paid for
all of it?

Personally, I'm glad I never went to a community college. Way too easy
to not complete a four year degree. And let's face it, most employers
aren't happy with an associates.

[Mike Granby]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> If you can afford to fly, you are paying for your health care
> whether you live in the U.S. or in Europe. In Europe you give
> the gov't money to pay for your healthcare, in the U.S. you
> give the insurance company money to pay for your healthcare.

And if you live in the UK and have a good job, you're paying twice over
because your employer will also provide you with private medical
coverage to make up for the fact that the socialized medical care sucks
except in certain limited circumstances.

Mike Granby
(Ex-Brit living in Pa.)

[Emily[_1_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Why is it bizarre? Take a look at statewide stats and you will find that
> folks transferring out of 2 year institutions into 4 year schools do better
> grade point wise than those going straight into 4 year schools out of high
> school.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't trade my 4 years at San Diego State for
> anything, but when somebody asks me to name the best four teachers I had in
> college, three of the four come from Grossmost Community College and one
> from San Diego State.

Strange. I took a few management classes at the largest community
college in the nation a few years ago - just for kicks, because I had
too much free time. Both instructors were terrible and nowhere near the
caliber I was used to from my college. Not to mention the other
students. I was scared I'd fail a drug test from sitting in the same
room as them.

[AES]

In article om>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> > Show me who qualifies for medicaid and can afford to fly at the same
> > time.
>
> If you can afford to fly, you are paying for your health care whether
> you live in the U.S. or in Europe. In Europe you give the gov't money
> to pay for your healthcare, in the U.S. you give the insurance company
> money to pay for your healthcare.
> In both cases, if you don't have money, the gov't picks up the tab.
> -Robert

I wonder if the final sentence above is true. If you've had any close
encounters with hospital bills lately, you have to be dismayed at what
seem to be the "way up there" costs or charges for every little aspect
of that part of the healthcare system. I have to suspect that somehow,
the charges on those who can pay are driven up by the hospital's legal
requirement to provide walk-in care without reimbursement for those who
can't, or won't -- and it shows up in _our_ payments, whether for direct
care or for insurance.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"AES" > wrote
>
> I wonder if the final sentence above is true. If you've had any close
> encounters with hospital bills lately, you have to be dismayed at what
> seem to be the "way up there" costs or charges for every little aspect
> of that part of the healthcare system. I have to suspect that somehow,
> the charges on those who can pay are driven up by the hospital's legal
> requirement to provide walk-in care without reimbursement for those who
> can't, or won't -- and it shows up in _our_ payments, whether for direct
> care or for insurance.

Around half your bill is someone else's bill.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> Don Tuite wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:43:57 -0500, Emily >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>>
>>>> I beg to differ. I am a product of CSU-San Diego and teach at
>>>> Sierra Community College in Rocklin and Grass Valley. The smart
>>>> ones go to the CCS to get their lower division classes at $24 a
>>>> semester unit and, upon graduation with a B average, a
>>>
>>> Oh, so smart ones don't just hop right into a university out of high
>>> school? That's a bizarre way of thinking, but if it makes the
>>> community college people feel better, it's ok, I guess.
>>
>>
>> Well, either way, you can graduate with a degree from UC Berkeley, but
>> one way you saved $40,000. I think that's what Jim meant by
>> "smarter."
>
>
> Who says that a person who went to a university for four years paid for
> all of it?
>
> Personally, I'm glad I never went to a community college. Way too easy
> to not complete a four year degree. And let's face it, most employers
> aren't happy with an associates.

That may be true. People lacking self-motivation probably shouldn't go
the community college route. However, those who do are well served by
their self-motivation as evidenced by their later performance at the
university level.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:

> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>> Why is it bizarre? Take a look at statewide stats and you will find
>> that folks transferring out of 2 year institutions into 4 year schools
>> do better grade point wise than those going straight into 4 year
>> schools out of high school.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't trade my 4 years at San Diego State
>> for anything, but when somebody asks me to name the best four teachers
>> I had in college, three of the four come from Grossmost Community
>> College and one from San Diego State.
>
>
> Strange. I took a few management classes at the largest community
> college in the nation a few years ago - just for kicks, because I had
> too much free time. Both instructors were terrible and nowhere near the
> caliber I was used to from my college. Not to mention the other
> students. I was scared I'd fail a drug test from sitting in the same
> room as them.

Large isn't necessarily equal to good. I've attended 7 different
schools at last count from one class taken at a community college to
some fairly well-respected institutions (Penn State, RIT, Alfred
University). The best school I attended was close to a community
college than a university - Penn State's Behrend campus. When I was
there (>25 years ago), they were still primarily a two-year feeder
campus for Penn State, even though they did offer a handful of four-year
degrees in areas such as accounting. The instructors there were simply
outstanding and were focused on teaching rather than research.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
AES > wrote:

> I wonder if the final sentence above is true. If you've had any close
> encounters with hospital bills lately, you have to be dismayed at what
> seem to be the "way up there" costs or charges for every little aspect
> of that part of the healthcare system.

I don't know. Is $45,000 too much for ER, surgery (4 hours), and 14 days
in the hospital?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Newps]

> Emily wrote:

>> Strange. I took a few management classes at the largest community
>> college in the nation a few years ago - just for kicks, because I had
>> too much free time. Both instructors were terrible and nowhere near
>> the caliber I was used to from my college.


Wow, a sample of two. That means, ah, nothing.

[Emily[_1_]]

Newps wrote:
>
>
>
>> Emily wrote:
>
>>> Strange. I took a few management classes at the largest community
>>> college in the nation a few years ago - just for kicks, because I had
>>> too much free time. Both instructors were terrible and nowhere near
>>> the caliber I was used to from my college.
>
>
> Wow, a sample of two. That means, ah, nothing.

It means a 100% terrible instructor rate vs. only about a 5% terrible
instructor rate at my university.

[john smith]

In article >,
AES > wrote:

> In article om>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > Show me who qualifies for medicaid and can afford to fly at the same
> > > time.
> >
> > If you can afford to fly, you are paying for your health care whether
> > you live in the U.S. or in Europe. In Europe you give the gov't money
> > to pay for your healthcare, in the U.S. you give the insurance company
> > money to pay for your healthcare.
> > In both cases, if you don't have money, the gov't picks up the tab.
> > -Robert
>
> I wonder if the final sentence above is true. If you've had any close
> encounters with hospital bills lately, you have to be dismayed at what
> seem to be the "way up there" costs or charges for every little aspect
> of that part of the healthcare system. I have to suspect that somehow,
> the charges on those who can pay are driven up by the hospital's legal
> requirement to provide walk-in care without reimbursement for those who
> can't, or won't -- and it shows up in _our_ payments, whether for direct
> care or for insurance.

My wife had to be taken to the ER by the squad two weeks ago. They kept
her overnight and released her the next afternoon. We had to go back for
a test Wednesday morning.
The hospital bill was $8000.
Today we received the statement from the insurance company informing us
what they had paid and what the hospital had accepted and how much we
owe.
Insurance paid $3700, we owe $1200 (20% of the total bill).

[Jay Honeck]

> > Right. Of course, in the US, Jet-A (diesel) is just about the same
> > price, or even a bit higher, than avgas.
> >
> > Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
> > engineering. It's also why Thielert hasn't gained any traction here.
>
> How do you come to that conclusion? Jet fuel is lower on the distillation
> scale, and should be easier to distill from oil, and get a bit more per
> barrel than Avgas. Add to that economy of scale, and it should be much less
> expensive.

Agreed.

I was referring to the British penchant for taxing the crap out of
avgas (the fuel of hte rich) and leaving Jet-A (the fuel of the
proletariat) pretty much alone.

You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
avgas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert M. Gary]

AES wrote:
> In article om>,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> If you've had any close
> encounters with hospital bills lately, you have to be dismayed at what
> seem to be the "way up there" costs or charges for every little aspect
> of that part of the healthcare system. I have to suspect that somehow,
> the charges on those who can pay are driven up by the hospital's legal
> requirement to provide walk-in care without reimbursement for those who
> can't, or won't -- and it shows up in _our_ payments, whether for direct
> care or for insurance.

My point is that if a homeless person in the U.S. walks into a hospitol
and needs expensive emergency care he will not be turned away. The
hospital will provide the care and the gov't (us)will fit the bill.
This even applies to those in the U.S. illegally.

-Robert

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 16 Aug 2006 22:36:37 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:
> I was referring to the British penchant for taxing the crap out of
> avgas (the fuel of hte rich) and leaving Jet-A (the fuel of the
> proletariat) pretty much alone.
>
> You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
> avgas.

At one of the airports that I refuel at (T00) when I'm not using
mogas, the current price on 100LL is $3.84 whereas Jet-A is $2.96...
The best price I see currently in Texas is $3.07 for 100LL and $2.39
for Jet-A at EBG... Hell, $2.39 is cheaper than I can buy diesel for
here in Texas... If I had a diesel pickup and lived over there, I
would probably be running Jet-A in it...

[Robert M. Gary]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Well, it takes money in addition to smarts to attend the expensive schools.

Just like the rest of the world. Europe has expensive private schools
too. Both the U.S. and Europe have public universities that are
excellent and low cost.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> There is very little reason that a smart or at least not stupid youngster in
> the USA can't go to college. They may not be able to go to an Ivy League
> school or even a major university but between community colleges and small
> state schools affordable education is available.

Exactly, so you can't say that the higher taxes in Europe are because
of more public universities. We (the U.S) have excellent, inexpensive
(by university standards) universities.

-Robert

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote

> My point is that if a homeless person in the U.S. walks into a hospitol
> and needs expensive emergency care he will not be turned away. The
> hospital will provide the care and the gov't (us)will fit the bill.
> This even applies to those in the U.S. illegally.

And there you have another reason why healthcare in the US is so expensive.

You have people who can not afford to pay for a family doctor, come to the
ER only when stuff is hitting the fan. Most times it could be taken care of
in a family doc's office, but they don't have to see you there. That leave
a bunch of expensive people and equipment sitting around for non emergency
types of problems, but still having to be paid for being ready for the
person that really needs it all.

Add to that the fact that there would not have been the urgent situation, if
preventative care had been taken.

Don't even get me started on malpractice insurance costs, or drug makers
advertising on TV and other places.
--
Jim in NC

[Anno v. Heimburg]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
> engineering.

Isn't part of the point of a government to do social engineering?

[Matt Whiting]

Emily wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Emily wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Strange. I took a few management classes at the largest community
>>>> college in the nation a few years ago - just for kicks, because I
>>>> had too much free time. Both instructors were terrible and nowhere
>>>> near the caliber I was used to from my college.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wow, a sample of two. That means, ah, nothing.
>
>
> It means a 100% terrible instructor rate vs. only about a 5% terrible
> instructor rate at my university.

This is certainly illustrative. You haven't enough data to even come
close to claiming a 100% terrible instructor rate. However, we have
enough data to know that you don't know much about probability and
statistics.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>Well, it takes money in addition to smarts to attend the expensive schools.
>
>
> Just like the rest of the world. Europe has expensive private schools
> too. Both the U.S. and Europe have public universities that are
> excellent and low cost.

Very few low-cost public universities even come close to the tuition of
a community college, at least not in the northeast where I live. Maybe
elsewhere, but not here.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Anno v. Heimburg" > wrote:

> > Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
> > engineering.
>
> Isn't part of the point of a government to do social engineering?

No.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Doug[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
>avgas.

The "expert" on the cost of Jet A vs 100LL has spoken.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
> >avgas.
>
> The "expert" on the cost of Jet A vs 100LL has spoken.

Seeing no smiley, I've got to say "get a life." He has a right to an
opinion without a smart *ss crack like that.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> There is very little reason that a smart or at least not stupid youngster
>> in
>> the USA can't go to college. They may not be able to go to an Ivy League
>> school or even a major university but between community colleges and
>> small
>> state schools affordable education is available.
>
> Exactly, so you can't say that the higher taxes in Europe are because
> of more public universities. We (the U.S) have excellent, inexpensive
> (by university standards) universities.
>
> -Robert
>

I never said the higher taxes in Europe were because of public universities.
I was responding to the assertion made by somebody that the poor can't get
an education in the US because we don't provide inexpensive, state
subsidized higher education.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Anno v. Heimburg" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
>> engineering.
>
> Isn't part of the point of a government to do social engineering?

No

[Doug[_1_]]

Always been curious what "get a life" is supposed to mean. (I think it
means, "think like ME").

Ok, I have MY "opinion". Since diesel has more BTU's per gallon that
gasoline, my "opinion" is diesel "should" cost MORE than gasoline!!

But the reality is , the MARKET and the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS,
and a bunch of other complicated factors, set the price and
availability of diesel, not my (or Jay's) precious "opionion".

Morgans wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> > >You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
> > >avgas.
> >
> > The "expert" on the cost of Jet A vs 100LL has spoken.
>
> Seeing no smiley, I've got to say "get a life." He has a right to an
> opinion without a smart *ss crack like that.
> --
> Jim in NC

[ktbr]

Anno v. Heimburg wrote:
> Isn't part of the point of a government to do social engineering?

For the governments of countries lacking a large degree of
personal freedoms, yes.

For governments such as exists (or should I say 'used to exist')
in the United States, absolutley not. It has been this lack of
social engineering by government policy that has made the US
an economic superpower in the span of 100 years. The Soviet
Union was an example of the failure of a government dedicated
to the concept of social engineering in as many years.

None the less, it seems we are running headlong toward the same
end.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Ok, I have MY "opinion". Since diesel has more BTU's per gallon that
> gasoline, my "opinion" is diesel "should" cost MORE than gasoline!!

Only if BTUs are the only important thing.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> But the reality is , the MARKET and the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS,
> and a bunch of other complicated factors, set the price and
> availability of diesel, not my (or Jay's) precious "opionion".

True. In a perfect world, given the lesser amount of refining
necessary, diesel (and Jet-A) should be cheaper to make, and therefore
cheaper to sell.

Strangely, diesel fuel in my neck of the woods is often MORE expensive
than regular gas. I would presume this is because they sell so much
less of it, but I honestly don't know the reason.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> None the less, it seems we are running headlong toward the same
> end.

The lure -- and illusory rewards -- of bribing us with our own money
are far too great for any country to long resist.

If you want to see America's future, all you need to do is visit any
inner city convenience store that sells lottery tickets, right after
the first of the month. It's really quiet pathetic...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[ktbr]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>None the less, it seems we are running headlong toward the same
>>end.
>
>
> The lure -- and illusory rewards -- of bribing us with our own money
> are far too great for any country to long resist.
>
> If you want to see America's future, all you need to do is visit any
> inner city convenience store that sells lottery tickets, right after
> the first of the month. It's really quiet pathetic...

Exactly. And it is sad to say, but public (government) schools are
doing a fine job of insuring new generations will go forth with
limited understanding of the real power of economic freedom and
just how precious it is to maintain.

[ktbr]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Strangely, diesel fuel in my neck of the woods is often MORE expensive
> than regular gas. I would presume this is because they sell so much
> less of it, but I honestly don't know the reason.

Jay, part of the reason is the additional filtration requirements.
In addition, the (airport) fuel trucks to service it are larger
and more expensive. The fuel hoses are larger.. it (generally)
takes longer (and more effort) to refuel Jet aircraft (Vs. piston
aircraft.) for overwing and of course single point equipment
is more expensive still. Much of the dispensing equipment
is capable of mixing in various additives during the fueling
process... the care and feeding of this post-mixing apparatus
is expensive.


There is also getting to be more and more demand for the stuff...
(for a number of reasons) and where demand is up so goes the price,
often erasing much advantage over gasolene.

For those that want to curse out the peoples of the middleast
because they are making $$$$$$$$ on producing and selling crude
oil I would say this: quit bitching and get busy producing the
stuff yourself and start making money like they are. If you don't
want to do that then shut up and start riding a bike.

[Howard Nelson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > > Right. Of course, in the US, Jet-A (diesel) is just about the same
> > > price, or even a bit higher, than avgas.
> > >
> > > Which is, of course, as it should be, without government social
> > > engineering. It's also why Thielert hasn't gained any traction here.
> >
> > How do you come to that conclusion? Jet fuel is lower on the
distillation
> > scale, and should be easier to distill from oil, and get a bit more per
> > barrel than Avgas. Add to that economy of scale, and it should be much
less
> > expensive.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I was referring to the British penchant for taxing the crap out of
> avgas (the fuel of hte rich) and leaving Jet-A (the fuel of the
> proletariat) pretty much alone.

At WVI Jet-A is the fuel of the rich and avgas is the fuel of the
proletariat. :)

Howard

[Jay Honeck]

> Exactly. And it is sad to say, but public (government) schools are
> doing a fine job of insuring new generations will go forth with
> limited understanding of the real power of economic freedom and
> just how precious it is to maintain.

Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course, this is
done with an undertone of self-consciousness -- as if they are somehow
ashamed to live in a capitalist system -- and there is always the
message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
crush the weak and weary.

Luckily, the kids spend many hours each week in the "real world",
working at the hotel. There, they can see life as it really is, in bold
relief -- sometimes in ways that their school teachers could never
dream of...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skylune[_1_]]

15-18 hours!! No wonder you fly. Buy a nice BMW, Audi, or Porsche and you
should be able to halve that.

[Robert M. Gary]

Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> You have people who can not afford to pay for a family doctor, come to the
> ER only when stuff is hitting the fan.

The fact remains that no one in the U.S. goes without medical necessary
care because of finances. The concern about millions of uninsured in
the U.S. (about 1/2 of which are in the country illegally) is not about
medical care, its about money. Everyone get medical care regardless of
their ability to pay in the U.S.
Mothers and children that do not have medical insurance get better
medical care than most insurance companies can provide as well.

> Don't even get me started on malpractice insurance costs, or drug makers
> advertising on TV and other places.

They need to advertise profitable products because they are subsidizing
the RND of drugs for the entire planet. The U.S. spends billions on
drug research. Once a new treatment is developed, the rest of the world
demands to receive it for production cost. If you think durg companies
are making money hand over fist, you are perfectly welcome to buy some
of their stock and share their profits. The fact is that the occasional
winfall from a new development comes after decades of pouring money
into research.


-Robert

[Morgans[_3_]]

"ktbr" > wrote
>
> For those that want to curse out the peoples of the middleast
> because they are making $$$$$$$$ on producing and selling crude
> oil I would say this: quit bitching and get busy producing the
> stuff yourself and start making money like they are. If you don't
> want to do that then shut up and start riding a bike.

Man, is it the full moon, or everyone's time of the month, or what? Jay
never bitched word one about the mid-east, or as you say, "middleast" or
whatever the h*ll that is.

Another for the looney bin.

[Emily[_1_]]

ktbr wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> None the less, it seems we are running headlong toward the same
>>> end.
>>
>>
>> The lure -- and illusory rewards -- of bribing us with our own money
>> are far too great for any country to long resist.
>>
>> If you want to see America's future, all you need to do is visit any
>> inner city convenience store that sells lottery tickets, right after
>> the first of the month. It's really quiet pathetic...
>
> Exactly. And it is sad to say, but public (government) schools are
> doing a fine job of insuring new generations will go forth with
> limited understanding of the real power of economic freedom and
> just how precious it is to maintain.

I have a public school education and you won't see me buying lottery
tickets, or participating in any other kinds of bad economic decisions.

Granted, I didn't learn anything until I got out of public high school.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> > Ok, I have MY "opinion". Since diesel has more BTU's per gallon that
> > gasoline, my "opinion" is diesel "should" cost MORE than gasoline!!
>
> Only if BTUs are the only important thing.

He obviously does not understand law of supply demand, or laws of chemistry
or physics, 'cause all three of those should have jet A costing less than
Avgas. The only thing that keeps prices high is the ability of the
producers to fix prices where they want, with no other choice being
available to the airlines or business aviation.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Moore]

Morgans wrote
or as you say, "middleast" or whatever the h*ll that is.

From Wikipedia:
The Middle East is a loosely defined term for the historical and cultural
subregion of Africa-Eurasia traditionally held to be countries or regions
in Southwest Asia together with Egypt. In other contexts, the region can
include other parts of North Africa and/or Central Asia.

Bob Moore

[Skylune[_1_]]

by "Robert M. Gary" > Aug 17, 2006 at 09:02 AM


Morgans wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> You have people who can not afford to pay for a family doctor, come to
the
> ER only when stuff is hitting the fan.

The fact remains that no one in the U.S. goes without medical necessary
care because of finances. The concern about millions of uninsured in
the U.S. (about 1/2 of which are in the country illegally) is not about
medical care, its about money. Everyone get medical care regardless of
their ability to pay in the U.S.
Mothers and children that do not have medical insurance get better
medical care than most insurance companies can provide as well.."

Stick to piloting. Who pays for immunizations of the "mothers and
children in the US that do not have medical care?"

Some states have free clinics. In other states they do without.

We do subsidize GA in the USA however. Ah, priorities and politics.....

[Emily[_1_]]

Skylune wrote:
<snip>
>
> We do subsidize GA in the USA however. Ah, priorities and politics.....

I'd rather have aviation subsidized than some woman with ten kids on
welfare. Socialists suck.

[Jose[_1_]]

> and there is always the
> message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
> crush the weak and weary.

And that is a valid and important message, as Microsoft, Exxon, and Sony
have demonstrated.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Morgans wrote
> or as you say, "middleast" or whatever the h*ll that is.
>
> From Wikipedia:
> The Middle East is a loosely defined term for the historical and cultural
> subregion of Africa-Eurasia traditionally held to be countries or regions
> in Southwest Asia together with Egypt. In other contexts, the region can
> include other parts of North Africa and/or Central Asia.
>
> Bob Moore


I think he was making a spelling joke.

[ktbr]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> I think he was making a spelling joke.
>

Yeah.. it seems whenever people have no real point to make
other than to inject themselves into a thread they will
make a comment about someones spelling or typing.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Morgans wrote
> or as you say, "middleast" or whatever the h*ll that is.
>
> From Wikipedia:
> The Middle East is a loosely defined term for the historical and cultural
> subregion of Africa-Eurasia traditionally held to be countries or regions
> in Southwest Asia together with Egypt. In other contexts, the region can
> include other parts of North Africa and/or Central Asia.

Note the smushed spelling.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

Skylune wrote:
> We do subsidize GA in the USA however. Ah, priorities and politics.....

No, we don't. Actually we collect up GA taxes and hold them in account
to make the deficit look smaller.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

john smith wrote:
> Insurance paid $3700, we owe $1200 (20% of the total bill).

You could also have elected to buy a more expensive policy that covered
more, you selected a policy that paid 80% based on the cost of the
policy and what you would get for it. Personally, I just carry a
catastrophic policy and pay everything out of pocket with pre-tax
dollars using an HSA. I'm saving a ton of money over my previous PPOs
and HMOs and if I ever do get really sick, the catastrophic policy
kicks in.

-Robert

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Exactly. And it is sad to say, but public (government) schools are
>>doing a fine job of insuring new generations will go forth with
>>limited understanding of the real power of economic freedom and
>>just how precious it is to maintain.
>
>
> Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
> job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course, this is
> done with an undertone of self-consciousness -- as if they are somehow
> ashamed to live in a capitalist system -- and there is always the
> message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
> crush the weak and weary.
>
> Luckily, the kids spend many hours each week in the "real world",
> working at the hotel. There, they can see life as it really is, in bold
> relief -- sometimes in ways that their school teachers could never
> dream of...

True. It is unfortunate, but unionized teachers are about as insulated
from the real world as it gets. Only politicians are more insulated.

Matt

[AES]

> Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
> > job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course . . .
> > . . . . there is always the
> > message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
> > crush the weak and weary.

Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
not?

I'm not putting down the free market system or capitalism in saying
this; not at all. I believe the underlying laws of free market
economics are demonstrated economic (and/or psychological) principles,
more or less as valid, universal, reliable, and inescapable as the laws
of physics that I know a fair amount about.

And I'm also in full agreement with, was it Churchill?, who supposedly
once said something like: "Democratic capitalism is not a particularly
good social or economic system. It's just substantially better than any
other social system that mankind has come up with." True enough, then
and now.

But when Free Market Economics turns into, not a set of economic laws to
help shape our broader policy making, but into an ideology, a economic
theology, before which we're all supposed to bow down -- that's bad news.

When FME becomes an economic religion which, as interpreted by its
acolytes and ayatollahs is supposed to reign dominant over every other
consideration in our lives, then indeed a lot of crushing of the weak,
the weary, the unfortunate, the innocent -- not to mention a lot of
exploitation of them and others -- is certain to result.

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
> > Insurance paid $3700, we owe $1200 (20% of the total bill).
>
> You could also have elected to buy a more expensive policy that covered
> more, you selected a policy that paid 80% based on the cost of the
> policy and what you would get for it. Personally, I just carry a
> catastrophic policy and pay everything out of pocket with pre-tax
> dollars using an HSA. I'm saving a ton of money over my previous PPOs
> and HMOs and if I ever do get really sick, the catastrophic policy
> kicks in.

We picked the policy we have based on what we could afford out of pocket.
Our family is normally healthy, spending less than $2000 annually on out
of pocket medical expenses. Eyeglasses for the family being the biggest
expense each year.
This medical emergency was completely unforeseen so the insurance cost
has already paid for itself.

[Matt Whiting]

AES wrote:
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>>Actually -- so far -- the schools in Iowa City have done a pretty good
>>>job of teaching the free-market system to my kids. Of course . . .
>>>. . . . there is always the
>>>message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
>>>crush the weak and weary.
>
>
> Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
> final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
> not?
>
> I'm not putting down the free market system or capitalism in saying
> this; not at all. I believe the underlying laws of free market
> economics are demonstrated economic (and/or psychological) principles,
> more or less as valid, universal, reliable, and inescapable as the laws
> of physics that I know a fair amount about.

I think part of the problem is that no economy is ever completely
capitalistic. For one thing, many "costs" aren't easily quantifiable or
assigned to the entity that created those costs. That is one reason
that "pure" capitalism tends to not be very nice to the environment.
The costs of pollution historically haven't been borne by the polluters.
I realize that Germany, as one example, is trying to change this with
their "cradle to grave" responsibility that a company bears for its
products. I suspect that this will have a profound effect over time.
If the makers of things that pollute have to bear all of those costs,
then capitalism is still very effective, even at preventing pollution.

So, I still think capitalism is a pretty good system, the problem is
that we seldom truly practice capitalism, and I don't think it is even
possible to do so.


Matt

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > Show me who qualifies for medicaid and can afford to fly at the same
> > time.
>
> If you can afford to fly, you are paying for your health care whether
> you live in the U.S. or in Europe. In Europe you give the gov't money
> to pay for your healthcare, in the U.S. you give the insurance company
> money to pay for your healthcare.
> In both cases, if you don't have money, the gov't picks up the tab.
> -Robert


An American pays more tax dollars to NOT get universal healthcare
compared to what a Canadian pays.

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd rather have aviation subsidized than some woman with ten kids on
> welfare. Socialists suck.

Actually, NPR did a piece today on the 10th anniversary of welfare
reform. Even the socialists they interviewed had to grudgingly admit
that the reform program, passed by the Republicans in 1996 (and signed
into law by Bill Clinton) has been a resounding success, with welfare
roles down 60%.

Best of all, according to NPR being on "welfare" has been stigmatized
once again, even in the inner cities, where it had become a
multi-generational way of life. People are ashamed of being on the
public dole, and are working their way out of poverty, instead of
Jonesing when their checks were late.

These are all good things.

Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
they had children?
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper/Webmaster
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Best of all, according to NPR being on "welfare" has been stigmatized
> once again, even in the inner cities, where it had become a
> multi-generational way of life. People are ashamed of being on the
> public dole, and are working their way out of poverty, instead of
> Jonesing when their checks were late.

Wow, I really don't see that in my area of the country. AT ALL. What I
see are hundreds, even thousands of people who moved here after a
certain natural disaster and never went home. They're using public aid,
and don't seem to want that to change.

> Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
> immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
> criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Me personally, I wish I hadn't been immunized. I'm not sure, when I was
a child, that vaccines were safe. We certainly didn't know as much as
we do now. I'm all about risk awareness, and a baby can't choose, and
parents are blinded by, well, paranoia. My mother still thinks I'm
going to die every time I get in a plane, so would one really expect her
to research vaccines? Nope. Course, I don't remember bring up
immunizations, so I'll stop there.

> Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
> "minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
> could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
> they had children?

As someone smarter than many people in the world, I say yes. As a
libertarian, I unfortunately have to say no. Reproduce as you like,
just don't use my money to take care of the results.

[Jay Honeck]

> > > Of course . . .
> > > there is always the
> > > message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
> > > crush the weak and weary.
>
> Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
> final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
> not?

Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.

It does not suffer fools gladly, however. Folks who ignore what is
happening around them get steam-rolled by events, in a capitalist
system.

I'm up against it every day, in my business. Two days ago, a $60
million (that's not a typo) Marriott Hotel opened up less than 5 miles
away -- and our phone stopped ringing. We went from having a
gangbusters August, to being behind last year, in two days.

The fact that this hotel was built entirely with taxpayer's money, by
the City of Coralville, might surprise you. On the other hand, in a
socialist area like the one I live in, this kind of thing happens all
the time. (The University of Iowa has a government-built-and-owned
hotel, the Iowa House. They also have a government-owned-and-operated
daily newspaper, the Daily Iowan, that I used to compete against in my
previous life.)

The local Sheraton -- itself the beneficiary of almost unbelieveable
tax breaks -- filed suit against the City of Coralville, to stop this
obviously illegal undertaking by a local city government. Incredibly,
the case went all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, and the courts
ruled that there was no law prohibiting an Iowa city from building a
hotel. So, the case was thrown out, and we are now fighting for our
lives against an additional 285 suites (we have 28) in a market that no
independent business felt was necessary to build.

Is this fair? Will the Marriott kill us? Will we survive the next two
years, between them and the new $80 million dollar casino hotel they're
building just south of town? I have no idea -- but I'll keep swinging
for the fences in the meantime.

That's capitalism -- and I don't want my kids teachers sugar-coating
it. All that will do is weaken them for their upcoming battle, in a
field called "life".
--
Jay Honeck
Owner/Innkeeper
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

[Jose[_1_]]

> Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
> of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
> democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.

No, it is not.

Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.

Small companies are far more influenced by individuals than large ones.
This allows large ones to get away with more. If they become large
enough to become monopolistic and get away with it, the key has been
thrown out.

Large companies can purchase more votes than small ones, or individuals,
and those votes keep them large and influential, despite any quality
issues with their products. WalMart, with its decrees about RFID tags,
may well be the biggest threat to privacy there is, but it is largely
unstoppable because there is little of equivalent size with sufficient
coherency to fight it.

Capitalism is also about passing costs on to others, who cannot defend
themselves against such a large entity. Dumping waste upstream harms
all those downstream, but those downstream have little recourse against
the capitalists upstream, especially when they are not in the market for
the product in the first place. This is inherently unfair. Outsourcing
is also "capitalism at work", yet has been derided as "unfair", both to
American workers, and to the foreign ecosystem.

But that's the way unrestrained capitalism works.

Some restraints are necessary. The key is which ones, and preventing
unrestrained government from becoming the evil we are trying to avoid
with unrestrained capitalism.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Emily" wrote)
> As someone smarter than many people in the world, I say yes.


Many ...meaning 100?
Many ...meaning 10,000?
Many ...meaning 1,000,000?

Let's assign "many" the value ...650,000,000. <g>


Montblack
http://www.worldometers.info/

Gonna cruise out of this city
Head down to the sea
Gonna shout out at the ocean
Hey it's me
And I feel like a number
Feel like a number
Feel like a stranger
A stranger in this land
I feel like a number
I'm not a number
I'm not a number
Dammit I'm a man
I said I'm a man

Song: Feel Like a Number
Album: Stranger in Town (1978)
By: Bob Seger

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no "minimum
> requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it could be, if
> only some basic skills were required of every human before they had
> children?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
In this world, the Mensa Society guys would be gettin' it ...all the time!

"How can I be more 'popular' with the ladies?"
"Develop your spatial relationship problem solving skills, for starters."


Montblack
Hoping those E.Q. points put me over the top - "Hello triple digits."

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:33:32 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote:
> 15-18 hours!! No wonder you fly. Buy a nice BMW, Audi, or Porsche and you
> should be able to halve that.

Used to own a Porsche... Also had the speeding tickets to prove it...
Top ticket was for 154 in a 55 -- apparently he clocked me when I was
slowing down for a curve...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/1989porsche944-turbo

These days, most of the vehicles that I drive, I don't have to worry
about them scraping bottom on a speed bump... Well, except my sport
bike... I've had it up to 140 and it was still accelerating quite
nicely... Yeah, had to slow up for a curve on US-151 somewhere between
Marion and Monticello, IA...

http://i3.tinypic.com/wco9ll.jpg

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I'm up against it every day, in my business. Two days ago, a $60
> million (that's not a typo) Marriott Hotel opened up less than 5 miles
> away -- and our phone stopped ringing. We went from having a
> gangbusters August, to being behind last year, in two days.
>
> The fact that this hotel was built entirely with taxpayer's money, by
> the City of Coralville, might surprise you. On the other hand, in a
> socialist area like the one I live in, this kind of thing happens all
> the time. (The University of Iowa has a government-built-and-owned
> hotel, the Iowa House. They also have a government-owned-and-operated
> daily newspaper, the Daily Iowan, that I used to compete against in my
> previous life.)

You know, after reading your post an hour or so ago, I have gotten more and
more ****ed-off. Since when does a government have the right to tinker in
direct competition with the private sector?

You need to get together with the Sheraton owners, and do some lobbying to
get some kind of new law passed, or a new damages suite, or forcing the
issue to the highest court, or something.

I will be among the first to contribute to a legal defense fund, for *that*
cause !!!

Damn, just damn !!!
--
Jim in NC

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
> immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
> criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.
>

Explain that to the parents whose kids became
paralyzed/retarted/infected/died as a direct result of vaccines. I
know, the probability of that happening is low, but if it happens to
YOUR kid, it doesn't matter what that mathematical probability is. The
ones who actively choose not to immunize have taken steps to become
educated about the risks and benefits of vaccines than the vast
majority who blindly follow what the doc says. Try explaining to a
widow whose husband died in a small plane crash why everyone who
doesn't fly are criminally stupid, because flying is a vey safe
activity. As you know, flying is a calculated risk and a choice. You
can't force that upon everyone just because you and the FAA think it is
safe.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-16, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
> registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?

What's worse is the airlines are claiming that they are subsidising GA
through the fees they pay to the CAA - and conveniently leaving the fuel
taxes out of the calculations. Of course, fuel for airlines is tax free.
If you have a plane that runs on Jet-A (for example, the new Diamond
DA-40 or Twin Star), you have to pay VAT on jet fuel which the airlines
don't. (However, Jet-A is still very cheap - about 1/3rd of the cost of
avgas even with VAT added)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-16, David Wright > wrote:
> It takes 5 hours to travel from London to Edinburgh by train, at a cost of
> around £80 ($160).

They've slowed down that much? When I worked for British Rail, London
King's Cross to Edinburgh took 3hr 59 mins by InterCity 225

> Luton (about 30 miles out of London) to Edinburgh with low cost carrier
> easyJet.com for around £20 ($40) in just under 50 minutes.

Plus 2 hours check in time at the departure airport, and a further 45
minutes to get to the centre of Edinburgh, don't forget :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
> "minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
> could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
> they had children?

Jay, I thought you didn't like socialism or social engineering? :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>>Of course . . .
>>>>there is always the
>>>>message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
>>>>crush the weak and weary.
>>
>>Well, I should think you'd want them taught "the facts of life". The
>>final sentence above is pretty much an emperically proven fact, is it
>>not?
>
>
> Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
> of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
> democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.

It isn't always fair, because not all of the information or costs are
available.


> Is this fair? Will the Marriott kill us? Will we survive the next two
> years, between them and the new $80 million dollar casino hotel they're
> building just south of town? I have no idea -- but I'll keep swinging
> for the fences in the meantime.
>
> That's capitalism -- and I don't want my kids teachers sugar-coating
> it. All that will do is weaken them for their upcoming battle, in a
> field called "life".

If the hotel was built with public funds, then this isn't capitalism.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> Capitalism is ruthlessly fair. It treats everyone the same, regardless
>> of race, creed, or political affiliation. It is the ultimate
>> democracy, and its basic rules are immutable.
>
>
> No, it is not.
>
> Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
> capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
> inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.
>
> Small companies are far more influenced by individuals than large ones.
> This allows large ones to get away with more. If they become large
> enough to become monopolistic and get away with it, the key has been
> thrown out.
>
> Large companies can purchase more votes than small ones, or individuals,
> and those votes keep them large and influential, despite any quality
> issues with their products. WalMart, with its decrees about RFID tags,
> may well be the biggest threat to privacy there is, but it is largely
> unstoppable because there is little of equivalent size with sufficient
> coherency to fight it.

Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried about
their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will correct the
problem quickly.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
>>"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
>>could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
>>they had children?
>
>
> yup. And you need someone to set the rules ...
>
> maybe someone sets the rule to only allow blond haired and blue eyed people
> to reproduce ...
> or maybe kill 'unworthy' life like people in wheelchairs or mentally ill.
>
>
> doesn't it all sound too familiar?

Yep, and we definitely shouldn't go there. Jay just wrote the above in
a moment of weakness. :-)

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> > Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
> > immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
> > criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.
>
> Explain that to the parents whose kids became
> paralyzed/retarted/infected/died as a direct result of vaccines. I
> know, the probability of that happening is low, but if it happens to
> YOUR kid, it doesn't matter what that mathematical probability is. The
> ones who actively choose not to immunize have taken steps to become
> educated about the risks and benefits of vaccines than the vast
> majority who blindly follow what the doc says.

are you serious? you think everyone who doesn't immunize has thought this
through?

> Try explaining to a
> widow whose husband died in a small plane crash why everyone who
> doesn't fly are criminally stupid, because flying is a vey safe
> activity. As you know, flying is a calculated risk and a choice. You
> can't force that upon everyone just because you and the FAA think it is
> safe.

cripes. The vaccine is to prevent a deadly disease. Flying doesn't
prevent death (except maybe being bored to death by a non-flying
"life"). To use that as an example or arguement is dumb.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[kontiki]

Jose wrote:
>
> Capitalism is sort of mostly fair when it's practiced by equals. But
> capitalism makes some powerful and some not. The next generation
> inherets this, and at that point it becomes inherently unfair.

Nothing in life guarantees you "fairness". Just exactly what is 'fair'?
What you define or what Jay defines it as... or what the government
defines it as... what how Fidel Castro defines it as?

Sorry, but whenever someone intervenes into the 'fairness' game
things go to hell.

[Emily[_1_]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Emily" wrote)
>> As someone smarter than many people in the world, I say yes.
>
>
> Many ...meaning 100?
> Many ...meaning 10,000?
> Many ...meaning 1,000,000?
>
> Let's assign "many" the value ...650,000,000. <g>

Hey, it was just an observation I made after my daily commute.

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
> immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
> criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.

Wasn't the recent measles outbreak carried into the United States/Iowa
by an unvaccinated child who became infected in England?

[Jose[_1_]]

> Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried about their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will correct the problem quickly.

That works, so long as there is an "elsewhere". As the larger companies
gobble up the smaller ones, the number of "elsewheres" diminishes, and
the power of the individual to affect WalMart by shopping elsewhere
diminishes. It is an unstable slope with a stable end point - Walmart
or nothing.

As for privacy, you missed the point entirely. The scenario is: Walmart
requires RFID tags. Companies respond by putting them in all their
products (because it's cheaper to put it in everywhere than it is to
selectively leave them out). So, even if you buy from the corner drug
store, you walk around with an RFID tag on everything.

It's not here yet, but it's very close.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Nothing in life guarantees you "fairness".

True enough. But the claim was made that capitalism is "fair". I
refute that claim. Nothing more.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> what will you (OK, you can fuel auto-gas) do when they announce that avgas
> will be taken from the market within the next - let's say - 12 months?

Why would *that* happen?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doug[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
>"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
>could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
>they had children?

There was a whole movement in the 1930's to do just that, the "eugenics
movement". It culminated with Hitler's experiments. So that one may not
be such a good idea.

Actually, there ARE self induced "requirements" to having a child that
MOST of us abide by. And institutions such as church and family set
"rules" for having children. It is just that when government does it,
it is a disaster.

[ktbr]

Jose wrote:
>> Nothing in life guarantees you "fairness".
>
>
> True enough. But the claim was made that capitalism is "fair". I
> refute that claim. Nothing more.

Again, I say define "fair". Is it fair, for example, that
people who have squandered their opportunity for an education
in this country be able to obtain "free stuff" (i.e. food
stamps, welfare and 'earned-income credit' etc.) by virtue
of the fact that they have no job skills worth a damn....

....as opposed to people who have good paying jobs and paying
lots of taxes as a result of working hard to get a good education
and taking care of a family, etc. but as a result are not
eligible for any of the 'free stuff' (that they are in fact paying for!)

What's fair about that? That has nothing to do with capitalism
and all to do with socialism. When irresponsible behavior is
subsidized (or rewarded) you end up with more of it.

[john smith]

In article m>,
"Doug" > wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >Honestly, you have to pass a test to drive a car, but there is no
> >"minimum requirement" for reproducing. Imagine what a lovely world it
> >could be, if only some basic skills were required of every human before
> >they had children?
>
> There was a whole movement in the 1930's to do just that, the "eugenics
> movement". It culminated with Hitler's experiments. So that one may not
> be such a good idea.
>
> Actually, there ARE self induced "requirements" to having a child that
> MOST of us abide by. And institutions such as church and family set
> "rules" for having children. It is just that when government does it,
> it is a disaster.

Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
contemplating increasing it.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Again, I say define "fair".

That would be up to the OP. I say there is no reasonable definition of
"fair" for which unrestrained capitalism is "fair". Life isn't fair either.

But ok, here's a working definition of "fair". If you could be put in
either position and not feel ripped off for not being in the other
position, then the situation is "fair".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
>
> > > Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
> > > immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
> > > criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.
> >
> > Explain that to the parents whose kids became
> > paralyzed/retarted/infected/died as a direct result of vaccines. I
> > know, the probability of that happening is low, but if it happens to
> > YOUR kid, it doesn't matter what that mathematical probability is. The
> > ones who actively choose not to immunize have taken steps to become
> > educated about the risks and benefits of vaccines than the vast
> > majority who blindly follow what the doc says.
>
> are you serious? you think everyone who doesn't immunize has thought this
> through?

True, not everyone has thought this through, that's why I said "ones
who actively choose not to immunize". But the ones who made a conscious
and educated choice should not be criminalized as negligent.


>
> > Try explaining to a
> > widow whose husband died in a small plane crash why everyone who
> > doesn't fly are criminally stupid, because flying is a vey safe
> > activity. As you know, flying is a calculated risk and a choice. You
> > can't force that upon everyone just because you and the FAA think it is
> > safe.
>
> cripes. The vaccine is to prevent a deadly disease. Flying doesn't
> prevent death (except maybe being bored to death by a non-flying
> "life"). To use that as an example or arguement is dumb.
>

May be it was a bad example, I just wanted to make it aviation-centric.
But it is not a foregone conclusion that routine vaccines prevent
deadly deseases. There are arguments for and against, and it is our
responsibility to be informed. What I often see is that the people who
have never bothered to look into this are quick to label the others as
dumb or negligent so that they can feel good about their decision to
remain dumb.

[kontiki]

Jose wrote:
>> Again, I say define "fair".
> But ok, here's a working definition of "fair". If you could be put in
> either position and not feel ripped off for not being in the other
> position, then the situation is "fair".

Okay but who's 'feelings' are we going to use? I'm sure most criminals
'feel' that they have been treated unfairly... probably as strongly as
their victims feel they were 'unfairly' victimized.

Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').

Thus, to be the most 'fair', a government should stay out of the business
of social engineering in any shape or form lest it favor one person or
group over another, which, is inherently unfair.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Okay but who's 'feelings' are we going to use? I'm sure most criminals
> 'feel' that they have been treated unfairly... probably as strongly as
> their victims feel they were 'unfairly' victimized.

The feelings of the person who is defining "fair". To use the
criminal-victim example, if one were to be placed inside the body of
either the criminal or the victim, which would it be? If you can easily
make a choice (based on results, not ethics) then the situation is
unfair. If it's hard to make a choice (well, he stole my TV but I got a
new wide screen one from him once he got caught...) then maybe the
overall situation is fair. That is what restitution is about.

Nothing is perfect, I don't claim it is. But the word is not meaningless.

> Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
> people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').

If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
"unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
warranted.

EVERY action is unfair taken in isolation.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>You're right, Jet-A in this country *should* be much cheaper than
>>avgas.
>
>
> what will you (OK, you can fuel auto-gas) do when they announce that avgas
> will be taken from the market within the next - let's say - 12 months?

Use AGE-85. The vast majority of GA aircraft can use it with a few
hundred dollars of modifications.

[ktbr]

Jose wrote:
>> Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
>> people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').
>
>
> If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
> "unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
> you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
> warranted.

The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
effort?

I think in the long term we will discover that letting Darwin's
theory run its natural course is the best way.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years

I said "successful" effort. The war on poverty, like the war on drugs
and the war on terror, are "unsuccessful" efforts.

What about public libraries competing with (and wiping out) private
ones, and competing with bookstores, encouraging people to NOT buy books
because they can read them for free? Fair?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

ktbr wrote:


>
>
> The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
> Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
> the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
> effort?

Therein lies your problem. The "poverty line" is arbitrary and can be
set to where ever you want and is vastly different today than say 50
years ago.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith > wrote:
> Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
> an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
> low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
> contemplating increasing it.

To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"

[ktbr]

Newps wrote:
> Therein lies your problem. The "poverty line" is arbitrary and can be
> set to where ever you want and is vastly different today than say 50
> years ago.

Exactly. That's why government has no business defining what the
poverty line is or giving special treatment to people simply
because they are below or above it.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:50:52 GMT, ktbr > wrote:

>Jose wrote:
>>> Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
>>> people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't 'fair').
>>
>>
>> If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
>> "unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
>> you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
>> warranted.
>
>The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
>Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
>the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
>effort?
>
>I think in the long term we will discover that letting Darwin's
>theory run its natural course is the best way.

Certainly worked for the potato famine.

Don

[Michelle Settle]

"ktbr" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>> Therein lies your problem. The "poverty line" is arbitrary and can be
>> set to where ever you want and is vastly different today than say 50
>> years ago.
>
> Exactly. That's why government has no business defining what the
> poverty line is or giving special treatment to people simply
> because they are below or above it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
self-employed people below the poverty line.

Michelle Settle

[Michelle Settle]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>> Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
>> an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
>> low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
>> contemplating increasing it.
>
> To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
> being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
> 4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
> causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"

Today it's more likely she's Mormon. In that case, she'd likely have six or
seven.

Michelle Settle

[Bob Moore]

Michelle Settle wrote
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
> self-employed people below the poverty line.

Have you talked to any flight instructors lately?

Bob Moore

[ktbr]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Have you talked to any flight instructors lately?

hehee!! Thanks for bringing this thread back on course Bob!

Personally, I maintain a full time job in order to subsidize
my flight instructing.

[Newps]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>
>>Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
>>an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
>>low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
>>contemplating increasing it.
>
>
> To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
> being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
> 4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
> causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"


What's wrong with four kids?

[Newps]

ktbr wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> Therein lies your problem. The "poverty line" is arbitrary and can be
>> set to where ever you want and is vastly different today than say 50
>> years ago.
>
>
> Exactly. That's why government has no business defining what the
> poverty line is or giving special treatment to people simply
> because they are below or above it.

Or to say that the war on poverty is/was unsuccessful.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:09:50 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>Or to say that the war on poverty is/was unsuccessful.

I'm with newps. All the "wars on x" are slogans. Arguing about them
is futile.

All I'm really sure of about the 40-odd years since I got the vote is
that we achieved unisex bathrooms without the ERA.

Don

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> True, not everyone has thought this through, that's why I said "ones
> who actively choose not to immunize". But the ones who made a conscious
> and educated choice should not be criminalized as negligent.

ah - a subtlety that was lost on me at 1am... serves me right for reading
and posting at that hour.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Don Tuite > wrote:

> All I'm really sure of about the 40-odd years since I got the vote is
> that we achieved unisex bathrooms without the ERA.

some achievement :-/

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> Nobody forces anybody to shop at Wal-Mart. If people are worried
>> about their privacy, they can simply shop elsewhere. That will
>> correct the problem quickly.
>
>
> That works, so long as there is an "elsewhere". As the larger companies
> gobble up the smaller ones, the number of "elsewheres" diminishes, and
> the power of the individual to affect WalMart by shopping elsewhere
> diminishes. It is an unstable slope with a stable end point - Walmart
> or nothing.

That was said about IBM before DEC and Microsoft came along. And DEC
before Dell came along. And GM before Toyota came along. And Toyota
before Hyundai came along...


> As for privacy, you missed the point entirely. The scenario is: Walmart
> requires RFID tags. Companies respond by putting them in all their
> products (because it's cheaper to put it in everywhere than it is to
> selectively leave them out). So, even if you buy from the corner drug
> store, you walk around with an RFID tag on everything.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. The point is you have choices and
can use the free market system to fight back. Will it cause you some
inconvenience? Most likely. The point is that capitalism provides a
solution to the privacy problem, it just isn't as easy as whinning about
the problem.


> It's not here yet, but it's very close.

As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
many in the media have made it out to be.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

ktbr wrote:

> Jose wrote:
>
>>> Social engineering is never fair because it (by definition) treats some
>>> people (or the activities they engage in) unequally (which isn't
>>> 'fair').
>>
>>
>>
>> If it does so in a successful effort to mitigate a different source of
>> "unfairness", then the overall situation is "more fair". I agree with
>> you in principle, but I don't think that applying it as an absolute is
>> warranted.
>
>
> The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
> Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
> the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
> effort?

And for a lot longer than that in other parts of the world. I think
this sums it up pretty well - "For ye have the poor always with you...",
Matthew 26:11

Matt (not the same one!)

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Moore wrote:

> Michelle Settle wrote
>
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
>>self-employed people below the poverty line.
>
>
> Have you talked to any flight instructors lately?

Good response and on-topic also. Give that man a cigar.

Matt

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:39:07 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
>
>As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
>many in the media have made it out to be.
>
True, vis-a-vis VHF/UHF, but the UHF tags may facilitate the universal
ID that folks on the right have been justifiably warning us about
since the inception of Social Security.

Don

[Matt Whiting]

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:39:07 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>>As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as
>>many in the media have made it out to be.
>>
>
> True, vis-a-vis VHF/UHF, but the UHF tags may facilitate the universal
> ID that folks on the right have been justifiably warning us about
> since the inception of Social Security.

It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
the right hand or forehead... :-)

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

john smith wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> Re: Childhood immunizations. There are no children turned away without
>> immunization anywhere in America. There *are*, however, millions of
>> criminally stupid parents who don't GET their children immunized.
>
> Wasn't the recent measles outbreak carried into the United States/Iowa
> by an unvaccinated child who became infected in England?

Mumps, actually.

I'm convinced I had a mild case back this spring - and I was vaccinated
as a child. Remember, immunizations don't 100% protect you.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>> Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
>> an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with
>> low birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are
>> contemplating increasing it.
>
> To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
> being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
> 4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
> causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"

What's wrong with having four kids as long as you can pay for all of
them? (And keep them away from me)

[Michelle Settle]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Michelle Settle wrote
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
>> self-employed people below the poverty line.
>
> Have you talked to any flight instructors lately?
>
> Bob Moore

The one I have been using is doing quit nicely.

The main thing is that he IS EMPLOYED, not sitting on his duff, waiting for
the phone to ring, in a vastly saturated line of work.

I would have loved to have been a movie star, but Sally Field had a virtual
lock on roles for very short actresses.

Michelle

[Michelle Settle]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 16:15:43 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>>
>>>Educated populations tend to stop or slow down procreating.
>>>an article in the Wall Street Journal stated that some countries with low
>>>birth rates which already have a childbirth incentive are contemplating
>>>increasing it.
>>
>>
>> To follow this logic to its full conclusion, we end up with the world
>> being overpopulated by the idiots... Just like when I see a woman with
>> 4 kids in the grocery store... "FOUR kids? Couldn't figure out what
>> causes it or are you just CATHOLIC?"
>
>
> What's wrong with four kids?

If statistics I've seen are any indication, it's that it is very likely
someone was subsidizing them.

Michelle

[Eduardo K.[_1_]]

In article >,
David Wright > wrote:
>
>It takes 5 hours to travel from London to Edinburgh by train, at a cost of
>around £80 ($160). Whereas, book early enough, and you can fly from London
>Luton (about 30 miles out of London) to Edinburgh with low cost carrier
>easyJet.com for around £20 ($40) in just under 50 minutes.
>

There is a Top Gear episode in which they buy cars and drive them
from London to some nearby town for less than the train ticket would have
costed them... I was shocked.


--
Eduardo K. |
http://www.carfun.cl | "World domination, now"
http://e.nn.cl | Linus Torvalds

[Jose[_1_]]

> That was said about IBM before DEC and Microsoft came along. And DEC before Dell came along. And GM before Toyota came along. And Toyota before Hyundai came along...

Yes, it was. But IBM and Microsoft are in different businesses. DEC
and Dell are in different businesses. It is that that caused the
upheaval. But in any case, big companies can compete with big
companies, and sometimes little companies can find a niche (there was a
satellite pager company that did some business with truckers - became
MCI) and grow from there.

Nonetheless, as far as =consumers= are concerned, there is little influence.

> No, I didn't miss the point at all. The point is you have choices and can use the free market system to fight back.

Yes, you missed the point completely. Regarding WalMart, RFID and
privacy, I can choose to never ever shop at Walmart, and the privacy
issues will be just as problematic. It is not =my= shopping at WalMart
that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping
there that does.

> As someone who is working with RFID technology, it isn't as capable as many in the media have made it out to be.

Yet.

When it is, it will be so entrenched people won't know what hit them.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:08:04 -0600, Newps > wrote:
> What's wrong with four kids?

Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
deplete our resources? Maybe you like living like a sardine, but I
don't... More people should choose to have one kid at the most...
Unfortunately, it tends to be the uneducated people who have the most
kids... Genetically, this is not good for the species... We're
breeding a population of minimum wage McDonalds workers...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:08:04 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>> What's wrong with four kids?
>
> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
> deplete our resources?

Well, I'll be dead before that happens. The problem right now is that
people have more kids than they can afford...but that wouldn't be a
problem if the government would stop paying for them.

> Unfortunately, it tends to be the uneducated people who have the most
> kids...

Ok, I'll agree on that one. Unfortunately, as someone already pointed
out, bad things happen when we try to limit the number or type of
children that people have.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>What's wrong with four kids?
> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet

Kids are not fungible. Four wonderful kids trumps one antisocial loser.
We need more wonderful kids, and fewer of the other kind.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:35:02 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> What's wrong with having four kids as long as you can pay for all of
> them? (And keep them away from me)

Other than a geometric increase of the population whereas we only have
a fixed about of resources? Frankly, I believe that the planet would
be better off with just a quarter of the people who are currently
populating it... Of course, in my position of The Arbiter of Truth in
The Universe, I get to choose which 75% to remove... If a tough job,
but someone's got to do it...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:09:46 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
> again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
> possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
> the right hand or forehead... :-)

Are you saying that implanting them in the left hand or the butt is
more acceptable to you?

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

> Yes, you missed the point completely. Regarding WalMart, RFID and
> privacy, I can choose to never ever shop at Walmart, and the privacy
> issues will be just as problematic. It is not =my= shopping at WalMart
> that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping
> there that does.

This makes no sense at all. How so?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:35:02 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>
>>What's wrong with having four kids as long as you can pay for all of
>>them? (And keep them away from me)
>
>
> Other than a geometric increase of the population whereas we only have
> a fixed about of resources? Frankly, I believe that the planet would
> be better off with just a quarter of the people who are currently
> populating it... Of course, in my position of The Arbiter of Truth in
> The Universe, I get to choose which 75% to remove... If a tough job,
> but someone's got to do it...

I trust you'll start with the man in the mirror. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:09:46 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>>It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
>>again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
>>possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
>>the right hand or forehead... :-)
>
>
> Are you saying that implanting them in the left hand or the butt is
> more acceptable to you?

Neither is acceptable to me.

Matt

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On 18 Aug 2006 08:42:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> what will you (OK, you can fuel auto-gas) do when they announce that avgas
>> will be taken from the market within the next - let's say - 12 months?
>
>Why would *that* happen?

because it is uneconomic to produce and to transport?
or maybe it becomes uneconomic?

steam engines also gone away in industrial production ....

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:09:46 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>It is certainly possible. This is OT, but we just studied Revelation
>again in church and when you look at implantable tags and think what is
>possible already, it is chilling. As soon as they suggest implants in
>the right hand or forehead... :-)

you think that this hasn't be done already?

-> <http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/28/article_tn_blanton.htm>
-> <http://www.google.com/search?q=rfid+children+find>

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:35:51 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>It is not =my= shopping at WalMart
>> that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping
>> there that does.
>
>This makes no sense at all. How so?

profiling.

profiling can also be done with knowing all the facts about the people
around you. eg: the percentage of dogfood sold in your neighborhood is
higher than average. Then one can assume that you too might have a dog
(without knowing that you buy dogfood).

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On 18 Aug 2006 08:19:30 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
>understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
>are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.

So you want your market to be protected (by and from government, in this
case).

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:03:56 -0500, Emily wrote:

>> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>> deplete our resources?
>
>Well, I'll be dead before that happens.

ignorance does not solve any problems.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Emily[_1_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:03:56 -0500, Emily wrote:
>
>>> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>>> deplete our resources?
>> Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
>
> ignorance does not solve any problems.

That doesn't change the fact that it's true.

[Jay Honeck]

> >> what will you (OK, you can fuel auto-gas) do when they announce that avgas
> >> will be taken from the market within the next - let's say - 12 months?
> >
> >Why would *that* happen?
>
> because it is uneconomic to produce and to transport?
> or maybe it becomes uneconomic?

Given the high number of charter business planes that use 100LL, I
don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

The price may well become unbearable, however. (Although prices here
on all grades of gas have dropped 5% in the last week or two.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[James Robinson]

"David Wright" > wrote:

>> Yes, but fuel isn't most of that. And if it weren't for taxes fuel
>> there would cost what fuel here does. OTOH they have effective
>> passenger rail transport, we don't.
>
> Less of the here and there, I'm in the UK!
>
> No, we don't have effective passenger rail transport ;)
>
> It takes 5 hours to travel from London to Edinburgh by train, at a
> cost of around £80 ($160). Whereas, book early enough, and you can fly
> from London Luton (about 30 miles out of London) to Edinburgh with low
> cost carrier easyJet.com for around £20 ($40) in just under 50
> minutes.

The train is scheduled at 4.5 hours, and Easyjet at 1.25 hours. I found
Easyjet fares for tomorrow at £140, and if you book early enough on the
train, you can find fares as low as £12.50.

The choice of mode really depends on where you are, and where you are
going. If you are in central London, you can arrive at KX only 15
minutes before departure, and be on your way. If you need to go to Luten
or Stansted to catch Easyjet, you need to start out at least 2 hours
ahead, to get to the airport in time to catch the flight. Transportation
to and from the airport adds to the cost, of course. Plus it takes 45
minutes to get into Edinburgh when you arrive at the other end.

Any way you look at it, the trip is still pretty long.

Now, if you lived near Luton, Stansted, or Gatwick, it would be a whole
different calculation, or if you were destined to a place part-way to
Edinburgh, like York or Newcastle.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:26:10 -0500, Emily wrote:

>>>> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>>>> deplete our resources?
>>> Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
>>
>> ignorance does not solve any problems.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Yes, it is true. But you don't care to do anything to help all the peoples
(plural intended) after you. You even haven't shown any sympathy ...

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:35:51 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>It is not =my= shopping at WalMart
>>
>>>that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping
>>>there that does.
>>
>>This makes no sense at all. How so?
>
>
> profiling.
>
> profiling can also be done with knowing all the facts about the people
> around you. eg: the percentage of dogfood sold in your neighborhood is
> higher than average. Then one can assume that you too might have a dog
> (without knowing that you buy dogfood).

Bunk. Assuming stuff about me doesn't invade my privacy. People had
done that for centuries. It is called gossip.

I never realized that Wal-Mart generated so much paranoia.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

>> It is not =my= shopping at WalMart that invades my privacy, it is the result of =other= people shopping there that does.
> This makes no sense at all. How so?

What invades my privacy (or will in the future) is the proliferation of
RFID tags on products. It's not happening much yet so people who are
concerned are dismissed as tin hats. But it is not difficult to imagine
a future in which almost all items are implanted with RFID tags, and
RFID readers are cheap (i.e. you could get them at Radio Shack for $35).
In such a case, stores, bars, restaurants, and other venues might
install the devices to keep track of customers the same way cookies are
used to keep track of web visitors, and for the same reason. The
plethora of items carried on one's person could not only be pretty
reliable a guide as to who you are, but as these items appear in
combination with other items, they are a guide as to who you associate
with. This would be incredibly valuable information if it could be
sifted through by powerful computers. It would be (deemed to be) useful
in crime investigations, border patrol, terrorist prevention, and if the
country keeps going in the political direction is it heading, could be
quite scary.

For this to happen, RFID tags would need to be implanted in a sufficient
number of innocuous devices, and this is something that would not happen
unless somebody can benefit financially from it. Well, big box stores
can reap significant savings by using RFID tags, and WalMart has enough
clout with manufacturers (themselves pretty big entities) to entice them
to do so. They are already doing so with other things. And when
products are made to Walmart specifications, everybody gets them that
way, whether I buy at Walmart or not.

I suppose I could walk around naked. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:03:56 -0500, Emily wrote:
>
>
>>>Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>>>deplete our resources?
>>
>>Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
>
>
> ignorance does not solve any problems.

Death does though.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> It is not =my= shopping at WalMart that invades my privacy, it is the
>>> result of =other= people shopping there that does.
>>
>> This makes no sense at all. How so?
>
>
> What invades my privacy (or will in the future) is the proliferation of

OK, now we've moved to will in the future. Change that to "may" in the
future and you will have come back to reality.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>>> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>>>>> deplete our resources?
>>>> Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
>>> ignorance does not solve any problems.
>>That doesn't change the fact that it's true.
> Yes, it is true. But you don't care to do anything to help all the peoples
> (plural intended) after you. You even haven't shown any sympathy ...

"Not showing sympathy" is not an example of ignorance. "Ignorance"
means lack of knowledge. It is not pejorative, but can be used to mean
"lack of knowledge of social graces"; in other words, "lower class". In
that sense it is an insult of the "your mother wears army boots" type.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> profiling can also be done with knowing all the facts about the people
>> around you. eg: the percentage of dogfood sold in your neighborhood is
>> higher than average. Then one can assume that you too might have a dog
>> (without knowing that you buy dogfood).
>
>
> Bunk. Assuming stuff about me doesn't invade my privacy. People had done that for centuries. It is called gossip.

That depends on how reliable the assumptions are, and what the
consequences are. With networked computers doing the assuming, and the
consequenting, you may find that your life is "personalized for your
benefit" by entities over which you have no control.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> OK, now we've moved to will in the future. Change that to "may" in the future and you will have come back to reality.

If you don't defend yourself against the future now, you won't be able
to when it comes. And as for it being in the future, other similar
forms of privacy invasion are very much in the present, and this is just
another flavor of the same thing. So it =is= in the present.

In any case, this is one way a large enough entity can dictate terms to
non-participants. It is an undesirable consequence of "unrestrained
capitalism".

The essence of capitalism is competition. The goal of capitalists is to
eliminate the competition. So, if captialism is successful, it eats
itself. Insurance works the same way.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:26:10 -0500, Emily wrote:
>
>>>>> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>>>>> deplete our resources?
>>>> Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
>>> ignorance does not solve any problems.
>> That doesn't change the fact that it's true.
>
> Yes, it is true. But you don't care to do anything to help all the peoples
> (plural intended) after you. You even haven't shown any sympathy ...

If I showed sympathy for everyone who actual deserved it, I wouldn't be
able to function.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>>> profiling can also be done with knowing all the facts about the people
>>> around you. eg: the percentage of dogfood sold in your neighborhood is
>>> higher than average. Then one can assume that you too might have a dog
>>> (without knowing that you buy dogfood).
>>
>>
>>
>> Bunk. Assuming stuff about me doesn't invade my privacy. People had
>> done that for centuries. It is called gossip.
>
>
> That depends on how reliable the assumptions are, and what the
> consequences are. With networked computers doing the assuming, and the
> consequenting, you may find that your life is "personalized for your
> benefit" by entities over which you have no control.

I'm not sure which is worse: the real privacy issues or the paranoia
about the privacy issues.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> I'm not sure which is worse: the real privacy issues or the paranoia about the privacy issues.

The real privacy issues are.

Take yourself back fifteen years and imagine people predicting that just
going on the web would be a privacy concern, and that visiting a doctor
would be a privacy issue... you'd probably be laughed at as a tin hat.
But even something as innocuous as small text files (cookies) have
become mighty powerful invasions. Viruses were all but unknown fifteen
years ago, and anybody who predicted that opening an Email could be
dangerous was roundly thumped. Now we have companies like SONY actively
putting trojan horses and rootkits in their own mass market items that
monitor your file transfers and decide whether or not you should be
permitted to accomplish them, and Amazon giving out "personalized
prices" (guess where that comes from) when you visit them. When
journalism is under the entertainment division, it's not too hard to
imagine articles being written in such a way that they read differently
depending on who accesses the web site, and what their browsing history is.

It's not paranoia. It's real.

That is not to say that there is a man behind the curtain pulling all
the levers. However, having the machine pull the levers by itself is an
even bigger problem.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:00:09 -0500, Emily wrote:

>>>>>> Other than the fact that we are going to overpopulate the planet
>>>>>> deplete our resources?
>>>>> Well, I'll be dead before that happens.
>>>> ignorance does not solve any problems.
>>> That doesn't change the fact that it's true.
>>
>> Yes, it is true. But you don't care to do anything to help all the peoples
>> (plural intended) after you. You even haven't shown any sympathy ...
>
>If I showed sympathy for everyone who actual deserved it, I wouldn't be
>able to function.

sympathy might be the wrong word (and it sure was lost in translation;
sorry, I am working on it).

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Jim Logajan]

Martin Hotze > wrote:
> sympathy might be the wrong word (and it sure was lost in translation;
> sorry, I am working on it).

Perhaps the word "empathy" instead of "sympathy" would be more accurate?

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> The price may well become unbearable, however. (Although prices here
> on all grades of gas have dropped 5% in the last week or two.)
> --

Oil and gas are on the way down.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:37:11 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> I trust you'll start with the man in the mirror. :-)

Nawh, I'm enjoying the position of Arbiter of Truth in The Universe
too much... I have served proudly in this position since 2003...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys/msg/fca6ce136a1d82aa
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys/msg/c8777fadfa8984f0
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys/msg/c4768aaf9a5ef040

http://makeashorterlink.com/?H6361469D

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:03:56 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Well, I'll be dead before that happens.

Personally, I haven't exactly scheduled my death yet and was kind of
thinking on being around for the next few hundred years or so... Of
course, my body might have different plans...

> The problem right now is that people have more kids
> than they can afford...but that wouldn't be a problem
> if the government would stop paying for them.

It's a twofold problem... On one hand, the government is giving them
positive motivation for spitting out numerous kids and no negative
motivation to act responsibly... On the other hand, the people who
tend to have these many kids are often those of lesser intelligence in
our society and it is unreasonable to think that of of these genes
we're going to end up wth kids of greater intelligence... Of course,
there are probably exceptions to this rule, but if one was to treat it
as a generalization, one would not be terribly in error...

> Ok, I'll agree on that one. Unfortunately, as someone already pointed
> out, bad things happen when we try to limit the number or type of
> children that people have.

Yeah, next thing you know, we will have college educated people
working behind the cash registers at McDonalds... Hell, we might even
get someone who works there that doesn't ask you if you want fries
with your order when your order was already just an order of fries...
Damn, next thing ya' know, they'll be able to operate a register with
*works* on it instead of *pictures*...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:50:52 GMT, ktbr > wrote:
> The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
> Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
> the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
> effort?

The definition of 'poverty' is quite a bit depending upon the country
that you happen to be in... You might very well find that the
individuals who consider themselves living in poverty here in the US
still have a TV and VCR... This might be considered someone who is
well off in other countries... It's all subjective...

[Jose[_1_]]

> Yeah, next thing you know, we will have college educated people
> working behind the cash registers at McDonalds.

That would be a good thing?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:01:28 -0700, "Michelle Settle"
> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
> self-employed people below the poverty line.

So, if we have an individual who is panhandling on the street or
washing car windshields at street corners for quarters, do we still
consider them self-employed?

Of course, we're not talking about the professional bums who
supposedly actually manage to earn a decent living through their
panhandling type activities...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:49:05 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> Good response and on-topic also. Give that man a cigar.

Which is one of the reasons that I hate it when people put the POL
crap in front of the message subject when the thread changes a bit...
I believe that you should keep whatever the original thread started
out as... If we go with the changing the subject idea, we would need
to remove the POL from the subject for the previous reply... Why don't
we just stick with the original subject and leave it that way...

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Good response and on-topic also. Give that man a cigar.
>
> Which is one of the reasons that I hate it when people put the POL
> crap in front of the message subject when the thread changes a bit...
> I believe that you should keep whatever the original thread started
> out as... If we go with the changing the subject idea, we would need
> to remove the POL from the subject for the previous reply... Why don't
> we just stick with the original subject and leave it that way...

Nothing's perfect. Let's try harder to stay off topic. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:00:19 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> and there is always the
>> message that capitalism needs to be reigned in lest it go crazy and
>> crush the weak and weary.
>
>And that is a valid and important message, as Microsoft, Exxon, and Sony
>have demonstrated.

Not at all. This sounds like the Elephant and the blind man.
Any system has flaws and be it capitalism or socialism some one or
group will exploit that advantage.

Each of the above has been found guilty of abusing the system in one
way or another and one location or another. In the end, I think
Capitalism will reign in the abusers if enough people speak up.

Be it government, industry, or individual the larger and/or more
powerful the more temptation for abuse of the system.

Currently we are seeing those abuses in both industry and government.


>
>Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On 16 Aug 2006 06:49:18 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>Tony Snow, "technical advisor" for our aviation video webpage (Tony is
>retired RAF, and has forgotten more about aviation than I'll ever
>know), confirmed for me today that it would cost $640+ for me to top
>off Atlas -- our Cherokee Pathfinder -- in Great Britain.
>
>Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
>registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?

No.

Then you have the costs of your flight briefing, ATC useage fees,
Landing fees, and a very restrictive system on top of the $640.


>
>Not to worry, however. Tony has confirmed that the streets in his
>hometown *are* paved with gold, and that everyone eats steak daily, for
>free, thanks to the taxes those remaining 9 pilots are paying...
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> Any system has flaws and be it capitalism or socialism some one or
> group will exploit that advantage.

Yes. This is why we have three branches in government designed to act
as checks and balances. Captialism needs also to be balanced.
Unrestrained capitalism is bad, as is unrestrained government. But the
two together provide a better system.

The OP was praising "unrestrained capitalism".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michelle Settle]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:01:28 -0700, "Michelle Settle"
> > wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I notice that there's virtually ZERO
>> self-employed people below the poverty line.
>
> So, if we have an individual who is panhandling on the street or
> washing car windshields at street corners for quarters, do we still
> consider them self-employed?

Would you consider them self-employed?

>
> Of course, we're not talking about the professional bums who
> supposedly actually manage to earn a decent living through their
> panhandling type activities...

How about drug dealers? Contract killers?

How about the days past of 14 year-olds that mowed lawns during the summer?

G-581, leave the "blond ditz" role to me -- you fail the basic physical
qualifications.

[Newps]

Michelle Settle wrote:

>>
>>So, if we have an individual who is panhandling on the street or
>>washing car windshields at street corners for quarters, do we still
>>consider them self-employed?
>
>
> Would you consider them self-employed?

Nope, lazy SOB's.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> Would you consider them self-employed?
> Nope, lazy SOB's.

Actually, in the Carribian islands, washing windshields and selling
things streetside is a normal (and valued) way of doing business.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:50:52 GMT, ktbr > wrote:
>> The war on poverty has been going on for 40 years in the country.
>> Today there are roughly the same percentage of people living below
>> the 'poverty' line as there were back then. Has it been a successful
>> effort?
>
> The definition of 'poverty' is quite a bit depending upon the country
> that you happen to be in... You might very well find that the
> individuals who consider themselves living in poverty here in the US
> still have a TV and VCR... This might be considered someone who is
> well off in other countries... It's all subjective...

TV & VCR? Ha! Try Big screen and home theater with a gar with $4000 rims.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The price may well become unbearable, however. (Although prices here
>> on all grades of gas have dropped 5% in the last week or two.)
>> --
>
> Oil and gas are on the way down.
>

You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this really
doesn't matter.

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


>
>
> You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this really
> doesn't matter.

Well good, my annual is due by Aug 31st. You just saved me some money.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this
>> really doesn't matter.
>
> Well good, my annual is due by Aug 31st. You just saved me some money.
>

Glad I could help. Just so you know my source is no less than the Wall
Street Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:09:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this really
> doesn't matter.

You're mistaken... The end of the world will occur on Jan 19th, 2038
at 03:14:17 GMT...

[Skylune[_1_]]

by "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> Aug 21, 2006 at 10:09 AM


You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this
really
doesn't matter
<<

I just found out that AOPA is opposing The End of the World, on the
grounds that it would be negative for GA. So, there should be no need to
worry.

[Jay Beckman]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:09:58 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>> You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this
>> really
>> doesn't matter.
>
> You're mistaken... The end of the world will occur on Jan 19th, 2038
> at 03:14:17 GMT...

Cite !

<gg>

Jay B

[Jay Honeck]

> > The definition of 'poverty' is quite a bit depending upon the country
> > that you happen to be in... You might very well find that the
> > individuals who consider themselves living in poverty here in the US
> > still have a TV and VCR... This might be considered someone who is
> > well off in other countries... It's all subjective...
>
> TV & VCR? Ha! Try Big screen and home theater with a gar with $4000 rims.

Ours is the first society in history to have FAT poor people.

Everything is relative.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Skylune" wrote)
> I just found out that AOPA is opposing The End of the World, on the
> grounds that it would be negative for GA. So, there should be no need to
> worry.


Negative for GA?

No more cranky airport neighbors.


Montblack

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:51:35 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:
> Cite !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

Of course, certain actions might allow us to prolong the end of the
world until 06:28:15 GMT Feb 7th, 2106, but I would still expect
significant problems in 2038...

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:59:17 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("Skylune" wrote)
>> I just found out that AOPA is opposing The End of the World, on the
>> grounds that it would be negative for GA. So, there should be no need to
>> worry.
>
>
>Negative for GA?
>
>No more cranky airport neighbors.
>
If it's just The Rapture, it's not gonna help much. Who's gonna be
gone? A bunch of Jains, a few Quakers, a lama here, a lama there . .
.. . It wouldn't even be worth arguing about who'd get their stuff,
because there wouldn't be very much of it.

Don

[Robert M. Gary]

Skylune wrote:
> by "Robert M. Gary" > Aug 17, 2006 at 09:02 AM
> We do subsidize GA in the USA however. Ah, priorities and politics.....

I agree. Building interstate infrustruction to increase standard of
living for all is a priority.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> An American pays more tax dollars to NOT get universal healthcare
> compared to what a Canadian pays.

And Canadians are still buying private health insurance while many of
their best doctors come to the U.S. for proper compensation.

-Robert

[Emily[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this
>>> really doesn't matter.
>> Well good, my annual is due by Aug 31st. You just saved me some money.
>>
>
> Glad I could help. Just so you know my source is no less than the Wall
> Street Journal.
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
>
>
You know it's already the 22nd in Iran and Israel....

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You must remember that Aug 22 is the end of the world so all of this
>>>> really doesn't matter.
>>> Well good, my annual is due by Aug 31st. You just saved me some money.
>>>
>>
>> Glad I could help. Just so you know my source is no less than the Wall
>> Street Journal.
>>
>> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
> You know it's already the 22nd in Iran and Israel....

It wasn't when I posted it at 10 something AM CDT on the 21st.

But now that it is I think we can rest assured that Iran does not have a
Nuclear capable missile that can reach Israel... Yet.

[Richthoven]

Iran has tested missiles that indeed can and will reach Israel.
The religious implications of Aug 22 2006 for Islam occurs at night.
Just like the 4th of July for Americans. If there is going to be a
brilliant light over Israel, it will most likely occur at night.

Iran just attacked and seized an oil rig in their waters. I think the
idea of malicious intent was just elevated. At this point I feel it
might be better to employ the "better safe then sorry" idea. Im going
to fill up many containers full of water. As for food and weapons, ill
wait till the next move to panic. But one should never take water for
granted.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Richthoven" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Iran has tested missiles that indeed can and will reach Israel.
> The religious implications of Aug 22 2006 for Islam occurs at night.
> Just like the 4th of July for Americans. If there is going to be a
> brilliant light over Israel, it will most likely occur at night.
>

You do realize that us USAians shoot our 4th of July fireworks at night only
because they are easier to see then?

Add to that they have already used up most of their Aug 22nd darkness.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-21, Grumman-581 > wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:51:35 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
> wrote:
>> Cite !
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
>
> Of course, certain actions might allow us to prolong the end of the
> world until 06:28:15 GMT Feb 7th, 2106, but I would still expect
> significant problems in 2038...

And unlike the Y2K problem, because 2038 isn't some sexy, scary new year
like 2000 was, it will almost certainly be ignored until it's too late.
Hopefully there will be few 32-bit systems with that problem still
running that will matter by then.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-20, Roger > wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2006 06:49:18 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>>Imagine! $640 to go fly! This *might* explain why there are only 9
>>registered Cherokee 235s in all of Britain, no?
>
> No.
>
> Then you have the costs of your flight briefing, ATC useage fees,
> Landing fees, and a very restrictive system on top of the $640.

Cost of the flight briefing in Britain: 0 (use www.ais.org.uk for NOTAMS
and complete IFR approach plates/airport diagrams/text information).

I can also talk to a real weather forecaster for free for aviation
briefings. I have a local telephone number for the forecaster at
Ronaldsway Met.

Cost of the ATC usage fees in Britain for a Cherokee 235: 0

Landing fees: Depends where you're going, but definitely nonzero. Most
GA fields GBP5 to GBP10 for a single, more to much more for a large
commercial field.

The system isn't particularly restrictive (certainly not for VFR).
Things you might hear about mandatory flight plans are fiction. A flight
plan is only required if you're crossing an FIR boundary (i.e.
international flight). It's not as free as the US though, but having
flown extensively in both systems, although the US system is far
prefereable, I don't find the UK particularly restrictive when going to
and from various GA airfields.

However, new and annoying things are afoot, such as mandatory Mode-S
transponders on anything that flies (this is being actively resisted by
the gliding and hang gliding community as it's pointless and will reduce
safety).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-08-19, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I trust you'll start with the man in the mirror. :-)

No, you only have to start off with having no kids really. That way no
violence is needed.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:54:48 -0000, Dylan Smith
> wrote:
> And unlike the Y2K problem, because 2038 isn't some sexy, scary new year
> like 2000 was, it will almost certainly be ignored until it's too late.
> Hopefully there will be few 32-bit systems with that problem still
> running that will matter by then.

I'm hoping that there will be a lot of them so that I can come out of
retirement and make big bucks on contracts like some of the COBOL
programmers did under Y2K... <evil-grin>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Grumman-581 > wrote:

> I'm hoping that there will be a lot of them so that I can come out of
> retirement and make big bucks on contracts like some of the COBOL
> programmers did under Y2K... <evil-grin>

Man, I could have, but really couldn't stand to do COBOL...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

> > And unlike the Y2K problem, because 2038 isn't some sexy, scary new year
> > like 2000 was, it will almost certainly be ignored until it's too late.
> > Hopefully there will be few 32-bit systems with that problem still
> > running that will matter by then.

> I'm hoping that there will be a lot of them so that I can come out of
> retirement and make big bucks on contracts like some of the COBOL
> programmers did under Y2K... <evil-grin>

The company my wife works for contracts programmers from India.
They are the only ones who still do COBOL, which is what the company
still runs.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:26:58 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:
> Man, I could have, but really couldn't stand to do COBOL...

I took COBOL in college and I could do it if I *had* to, but I really
hate the language... I've yet to find a company stupid enough to pay
me the amount of money that it would take to entice me to program in
COBOL...

"I might not be cheap, but I *can* be bought"

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:48:14 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:26:58 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:
>> Man, I could have, but really couldn't stand to do COBOL...
>
>I took COBOL in college and I could do it if I *had* to, but I really
>hate the language... I've yet to find a company stupid enough to pay
>me the amount of money that it would take to entice me to program in
>COBOL...
I took CS instead of CIS so I didn't have to take Cobol, but that
meant I ended up with a minor in math. <:-))

If they'd pay me what I was offered on the last job I'd learn Cobol.
Course it'd be OJT.<:-))

Let's see...If I can stick around to help out at 2038, at 108 I'd be
the world's oldest programmer in addition to the World's oldest
Debonair pilot.
>
>"I might not be cheap, but I *can* be bought"

That's: "I may be easy, but I ain't cheap!"
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:43:30 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> I took CS instead of CIS so I didn't have to take Cobol, but that
> meant I ended up with a minor in math. <:-))

I was a CS major also... COBOL was one of the few languages that I
hadn't taken, so I figured I might as well take it for an easy 'A'...
About the only time I came to class was for the tests... My minor also
ended up being in Math...

> Let's see...If I can stick around to help out at 2038, at 108 I'd be
> the world's oldest programmer in addition to the World's oldest
> Debonair pilot.

I won't exactly be a spring chicken at that time either, but I don't
really have any other plans, so I might as well stay alive... I
suspect that Darwin might have other plans for me though... I've
cheated him too many times over the years and I suspect that he's
starting to get ****ed... Hell, if I had known that I would have lived
this long, I might not have done all the adrenaline inducing things in
my youth that now gives me nice reminders whenever the weather
changes... Oh well, life sucks, but the alternative is not that great
either...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 19:26:58 -0400, Bob Noel
> > wrote:
>> Man, I could have, but really couldn't stand to do COBOL...
>
> I took COBOL in college and I could do it if I *had* to, but I really
> hate the language... I've yet to find a company stupid enough to pay
> me the amount of money that it would take to entice me to program in
> COBOL...

How funny....I took FORTRAN and half the people in the class complained
that COBOL wasn't offered as an entry-level class. No accounting for
taste in programming languages, I guess.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How funny....I took FORTRAN and half the people in the class complained that COBOL wasn't offered as an entry-level class. No accounting for taste in programming languages, I guess.

FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
true for HTML and the web.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> How funny....I took FORTRAN and half the people in the class
>> complained that COBOL wasn't offered as an entry-level class. No
>> accounting for taste in programming languages, I guess.
>
> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
> true for HTML and the web.
>
> Jose
Oh, but it's so much fun to watch people's faces when I tell them I know
FORTRAN.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
> true for HTML and the web.

Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
course, it doesn't have the character of APL... <evil-grin>

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> How funny....I took FORTRAN and half the people in the class
>> complained that COBOL wasn't offered as an entry-level class. No
>> accounting for taste in programming languages, I guess.
>
>
> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
> true for HTML and the web.

Howso?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>>true for HTML and the web.
>
>
> Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
> course, it doesn't have the character of APL... <evil-grin>
>

You forgot the "s" on character. :-)

Matt

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> How funny....I took FORTRAN and half the people in the class complained that COBOL wasn't offered as an entry-level class. No accounting for taste in programming languages, I guess.
>
>FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>true for HTML and the web.

Followed by structured programming,, Yourdon, data-flow analysis, and
OOP. While on the hardware side, it was the RISC/CISC wars, VLIW, and
now multi-core mumbo jumbo. Along the way lie the bones of Control
Data, DEC, Data General, Amdahl, Pyramid, Chromatics, SGI, Daisy,
Apollo, etc. While we still have the animated skeletons of HP and Sun.

We've probably been set back 200 years by the lot 'em.

Did'ya see yesterdays news where the Cray at Oak Ridge is up to 54
TFLOPS?

Don

[Jose[_1_]]

> Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good.

Yes, that was the problem. It was good. It kept getting better, and
spaghetti code became ubiquituos. We still need to know Italian. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is true for HTML and the web.
> Howso?

Insomuch as it was good enough to get the job done, while preserving
(and cementing in standards) its atrocious parts. FORTRAN is (for me)
the king of spaghetti code. Though it was common enough before FORTRAN,
the FORTRAN compilers got so good it wasn't worth recoding what was
already done - so things were made to work with it.

The mess we have on the web is due to the original limitations of HTML
(both conceptual and in implementation) and the kludges required to get
around it, and the kludges web designers use to get around the kludges
that get around the original limitations. It will take a revolution to
kill that beast.

The same can be said of many aviation related things (sorry about
bringing the thread back on topic) when it comes to certification
standards. The barriers to innovation are too big, and the system works
"well enough".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:17:11 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>>> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is true for HTML and the web.
>> Howso?
>
>Insomuch as it was good enough to get the job done, while preserving
>(and cementing in standards) its atrocious parts. FORTRAN is (for me)
>the king of spaghetti code. Though it was common enough before FORTRAN,
>the FORTRAN compilers got so good it wasn't worth recoding what was
>already done - so things were made to work with it.

"Before" FORTRAN? That was 1957. (I punched my first dusty deck for
the 1620 in 1963 -- using FORTRAN IV.) COBOL was 1960 and RPG a few
years after that. Before FORTRAN was ML and assembly language. Boy
if you want to talk about bad programming, show me someone who
inserted undocumented assembly routine calls into FORTRAN to show how
cleverly he could take advantage or architectural peculiarities.

Don

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:17:11 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Insomuch as it was good enough to get the job done, while preserving
> (and cementing in standards) its atrocious parts. FORTRAN is (for me)
> the king of spaghetti code.

Damn, I hate it when someone keeps changing the message subject on a
thread...

FORTRAN does not have to be spaghetti code... Even before they had an
if-then-else structure in the language, we were able to simulate it by
the way that we structured our 'if's and 'go to's... For example:

if (x .lt. 5) go to 100
y = 6
z = 7
go to 200
100 y = 7
z = 8
200 (the next outside the pseudo-if-then-else clause)

Now, since we only had 6 character variable names to work with and
minimal characters on a single line, the above indentations offen did
not occur... All in all, I like 'C'... It is clean and efficient... If
I'm presented with any FORTRAN code these days, I'll convert it to 'C'
if at all possible...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:45:11 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> You forgot the "s" on character. :-)

Yeah, that too... <grin>

There was a successor to APL called 'J' that used the ASCII character
set and provided the same functionality as APL... Kind of loses the
flavor of the language when you get rid of all the funky characters
though...

For certain things, I like APL... It makes for a great interactive
calculator... I wish that I had had a laptop with an APL interpreter
on it when I was taking my Linear Algebra course way back in my
undergraduate days... Of course, I don't think that laptops were even
around back then... If there were any, they were the large plasma
screen units that had to be plugged into a wall and still weighed a
ton... I think that were classified as 'portable'... Still, that was
better than the previous generation of Compaqs which were 'lugable' --
basically the size of a suitcase...

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:21:33 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
>wrote:
>> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>> true for HTML and the web.
>
>Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
>course, it doesn't have the character of APL... <evil-grin>

Doesn't have pointers or linked lists either. <:-))
The two most difficult were data base design and working out well
beyond any useful "normal form" and compiler design in straight C
before ANSI C when it did little if any type checking and made the
assumption the programmer knew what he, or she was doing. It'd
basically let you do most any thing with, or to anything.

When I started on my masters at a different university they had the
same course out of the same book, but it was two terms and 8 credit
hours (and a whole lot easier, but they wouldn't let me take it
again). I was the only one in the class who wrote an input scanner
with current and next state arrays. Every one else used logic
statements.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:01:08 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good.
>
>Yes, that was the problem. It was good. It kept getting better, and
>spaghetti code became ubiquituos. We still need to know Italian. :)

Spaghetti code? With the introductory courses were allowed the grand
total of *one* goto statement or its equivalent per program.
In higher level we needed to have a good explanation if we used even
one.



>
>Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:21:33 GMT, Grumman-581
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>>>true for HTML and the web.
>>
>>Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
>>course, it doesn't have the character of APL... <evil-grin>
>
>
> Doesn't have pointers or linked lists either. <:-))
> The two most difficult were data base design and working out well
> beyond any useful "normal form" and compiler design in straight C
> before ANSI C when it did little if any type checking and made the
> assumption the programmer knew what he, or she was doing. It'd
> basically let you do most any thing with, or to anything.

Sure it does. You just haven't looked at FORTRAN lately... :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>>> true for HTML and the web.
>>
>> Howso?
>
>
> Insomuch as it was good enough to get the job done, while preserving
> (and cementing in standards) its atrocious parts. FORTRAN is (for me)
> the king of spaghetti code. Though it was common enough before FORTRAN,
> the FORTRAN compilers got so good it wasn't worth recoding what was
> already done - so things were made to work with it.
>
> The mess we have on the web is due to the original limitations of HTML
> (both conceptual and in implementation) and the kludges required to get
> around it, and the kludges web designers use to get around the kludges
> that get around the original limitations. It will take a revolution to
> kill that beast.
>
> The same can be said of many aviation related things (sorry about
> bringing the thread back on topic) when it comes to certification
> standards. The barriers to innovation are too big, and the system works
> "well enough".

Oh, so you are one who blames poor workmanship on the tools.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> Damn, I hate it when someone keeps changing the message subject on a
> thread...

Damn, I hate it when the thread subject bears no relation to the message
itself... :)

> Even before they had an
> if-then-else structure in the language, we were able to simulate it

Yes. Goto is extremely powerful. I even used it once in C. But its
ubiquitousness made it very vulnerable (you can go to anywhere - there
is no "come from" statement). When structured programming was made part
of the language, a lot changed - it was much easier to make code that
didn't require grated cheese to be palatable.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Oh, so you are one who blames poor workmanship on the tools.

I'm not talking about workmanship at all. I'm talking about systemic
results. Imagine spending $300,000 to redo a house. Chances are pretty
good you'd gut it and start over and get exactly what you want. But if
you had to live in the house at the same time, and didn't know how much
you had to spend, chances are you'd do it piecemeal, and each piece
would have to fit the existing work. This limits your choices at each
step of the way (you can't get this refrigerator because it won't fit
between the two counters, and now you get the counter that works with
the refrigerator you settled on... Now, if you have a choice, and the
pain of living in the house is not too great, and the compromises you
have to live with aren't too big, you might just do it piecemeal anyway,
rather than move out for eight months. You'd get a result that's not as
good, but it's "good enough". And often, that's good enough.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:06:51 -0400, Roger >
wrote:
> Spaghetti code? With the introductory courses were allowed the grand
> total of *one* goto statement or its equivalent per program.
> In higher level we needed to have a good explanation if we used even
> one.

I still have some 'C' library routines that I have written and carry
around with me from project to project that have 'goto's in them...
They are hidden withing macros, so they at least *look* like
structured coding techniques, but inside it all, there are 'goto's
there... The provide a single exit point from a function with the
capability to perform certain operations at this exit point... It
really cleans up the code in certain situations... Here's an example
of how they're used:

int MyFunction( char *fileName )
{
int fl = NULL;
char bufferSize = 1024;
char *buffer = NULL;

BEGIN("MyFunction");

/* Ensure input parameters are good */
if (fileName == NULL)
RETURN(ERR_InvalidArg);

/* Dynamically allocate data structures */
buffer = malloc(bufferSize);
if (buffer == NULL)
RETURN(ERR_MemoryAllocationFailure);

/* Open the input file */
fl = fopen(fileName, "r");
if (fl == NULL)
RETURN(ERR_CouldNotOpenFile);

/* Process the input file */
while (fgets(fl, buffer, bufferSize) != NULL) {
/* Do some processing on the string read */
}

RETURN(0);

ON_EXIT {
if (buffer != NULL)
free(buffer);
if (fl != NULL)
fclose(fl);

return (retCode);
}
}

The 'BEGIN' macro looks like this:
#define BEGIN(x) int retCode; char *fnName = x;

The 'RETURN' macro looks like this:
#define RETURN(x) { retCode = x; goto ExitFunction; }

The 'ON_EXIT' macro looks like this:
#define ON_EXIT goto ExitFunction;

Yeah, it could be done with a lot of nested conditionals, but in my
opinion, this ends up cleaner, especially where you have a lot of
things that need to be checked... Adding a new thing that needs to be
checked usually just requires the addition of the instantiation /
allocation / setup portion of it in addition to putting a possible
cleanup portion for it in the ON_EXIT section... This was created in
the days before C++ and as such, it even works on all the old
compilers that we sometimes encounter on projects...

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> Oh, so you are one who blames poor workmanship on the tools.
>
>
> I'm not talking about workmanship at all. I'm talking about systemic
> results. Imagine spending $300,000 to redo a house. Chances are pretty
> good you'd gut it and start over and get exactly what you want. But if
> you had to live in the house at the same time, and didn't know how much
> you had to spend, chances are you'd do it piecemeal, and each piece
> would have to fit the existing work. This limits your choices at each
> step of the way (you can't get this refrigerator because it won't fit
> between the two counters, and now you get the counter that works with
> the refrigerator you settled on... Now, if you have a choice, and the
> pain of living in the house is not too great, and the compromises you
> have to live with aren't too big, you might just do it piecemeal anyway,
> rather than move out for eight months. You'd get a result that's not as
> good, but it's "good enough". And often, that's good enough.

Incrementally building a system isn't the same as spaghetti code which
is what you were railing against and blaming on a language. The
language didn't create the spaghetti code, the programmer did. Very
clear code can be written in assembly language and very convoluted code
can be written in Pascal, Ada or Cobol. It isn't a language issue, it
is a programmer issue.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> Incrementally building a system isn't the same as spaghetti code which is what you were railing against and blaming on a language.

Well, I said that FORTRAN (and HTML) have set {field} back ten years.
It was hyperbole, of course, but the fact that FORTRAN and HTML were
"good enough" reduced the incentive to develop better tools. Tools do
act as a limitation, and they do help define the landscape.

My rail was against the landscape, not against individual projects.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:02:45 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Well, I said that FORTRAN (and HTML) have set {field} back ten years.
> It was hyperbole, of course, but the fact that FORTRAN and HTML were
> "good enough" reduced the incentive to develop better tools. Tools do
> act as a limitation, and they do help define the landscape.

HTML was OK as it was originally designed -- as a markup mechanism for
text... What we've done with it since is ridiculous... Personally, I
would have preferred to have seen X-Windows or even DisplayPostScript
adopted, but oh well, such is life... A better technical solution is
not always the one that gets selected...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:39:13 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote:
<snip>
> while (fgets(fl, buffer, bufferSize) != NULL) {

Ooops... Change that to:
while (fgets(buffer, bufferSize, fl) != NULL) {

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:02:45 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
>>Well, I said that FORTRAN (and HTML) have set {field} back ten years.
>>It was hyperbole, of course, but the fact that FORTRAN and HTML were
>>"good enough" reduced the incentive to develop better tools. Tools do
>>act as a limitation, and they do help define the landscape.
>
>
> HTML was OK as it was originally designed -- as a markup mechanism for
> text... What we've done with it since is ridiculous... Personally, I
> would have preferred to have seen X-Windows or even DisplayPostScript
> adopted, but oh well, such is life... A better technical solution is
> not always the one that gets selected...

That still doesn't constitute setting back the field ten years. These
didn't provide less capability than was already present so they didn't
set anything back. They may have slowed progress, but that isn't the
same as a setback. I'm not sure Jose knows what it means to set
something back.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> HTML was OK as it was originally designed

So was FORTRAN. But the world moved on, and we stayed with HTML, to our
enternal consternation.

> Personally, I would have preferred to have seen X-Windows or even DisplayPostScript

Remember it's not (and should not be) a formatting language, since it
can't buy me a new monitor. But the tags thing is just so... there
aren't polite words for it.

> A better technical solution is
> not always the one that gets selected.

Often because the thing that it's better for isn't thought to be worth
devoting time to... and then that turns out to be an error.. too late.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I'm not sure Jose knows what it means to set something back.

1: It's hyperbole.

2: Had we started out slower, but gotten a better {whatever} to begin
with, we'd be further ahead today, and it would be easier to make
progress. Ten years? Well, maybe.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Ooops... Change that to:
> while (fgets(buffer, bufferSize, fl) != NULL) {

Too late. You just ate your tail, half the operating system, and all
the virtual memory in the next three computers over. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:30:12 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Too late. You just ate your tail, half the operating system, and all
> the virtual memory in the next three computers over. :)

That's OK, I'm a UNIX programmer -- I can handle core dumps...

Gotta admit though, that construct for fgets() is ass backwards...
Most of the other type routines expect the file object identifier
(i.e. file handle, file pointer, etc) as the first parameter... Most
of my code usually returns some sort of integer as a result code and
the rest of the parameters as either input or output to the
function... Very seldom, except on the simplest routines, do I use
void for the function return type and make it a procedure... Assuming
that I'm creating a library of related functions (i.e. basically a 'C'
object), the functions will have as the first parameter a handle to
the object (usually a pointer to some data type)... What a lot of
people don't seem to understand is that you can create object oriented
code in standard 'C' without having to resort of C++...

[Jose[_1_]]

> What a lot of
> people don't seem to understand is that you can create object oriented
> code in standard 'C' without having to resort of C++.

I always thought "Object Oriented Program" was the singular for "I made
an error".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...

> What a lot of
> people don't seem to understand is that you can create object oriented
> code in standard 'C' without having to resort of C++...

Objective-C

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:
>> I'm not sure Jose knows what it means to set something back.
>
>
> 1: It's hyperbole.
>
> 2: Had we started out slower, but gotten a better {whatever} to begin
> with, we'd be further ahead today, and it would be easier to make
> progress. Ten years? Well, maybe.

And something better would be? would have been?

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> And something better would be? would have been?

C is better than FORTRAN. Maybe something like C would have been
developed sooner if FORTRAN compilers didn't get so good.

Anything is better than HTML. Of course "better" depends on the use to
which it is put, and HTML is not really being put to the uses it was
intended for. Not being an expert in the internet, I don't have much to
offer as an improvement, but I know a kludge when I see it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> And something better would be? would have been?
>
>
> C is better than FORTRAN. Maybe something like C would have been
> developed sooner if FORTRAN compilers didn't get so good.

I was expecting that. C has held back software development more than
any other language invented. C is what assembly should have been, but
it certainly sucks as a "high level" language.

Matt

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:07:21 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>
>> What a lot of
>> people don't seem to understand is that you can create object oriented
>> code in standard 'C' without having to resort of C++...

Yah...but...

C++ is just a bunch of object oriented libraries written in straight
C. C++ just saves us the time of having to write all that code. It's
also why compiling 37K of source code may give you a 30 Meg EXE. <:-))


>
>Objective-C
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:52:21 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:21:33 GMT, Grumman-581
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:13:45 GMT, Jose >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>FORTRAN has single-handedly set science back ten years. The same is
>>>>true for HTML and the web.
>>>
>>>Compared to what else was available at the time, it was good... Of
>>>course, it doesn't have the character of APL... <evil-grin>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't have pointers or linked lists either. <:-))
>> The two most difficult were data base design and working out well
>> beyond any useful "normal form" and compiler design in straight C
>> before ANSI C when it did little if any type checking and made the
>> assumption the programmer knew what he, or she was doing. It'd
>> basically let you do most any thing with, or to anything.
>
>Sure it does. You just haven't looked at FORTRAN lately... :-)

You mean there's something newer than Fortran 77? <:-))


>
>Matt
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jose[_1_]]

> C has held back software development more than any other language invented.

It accelerated Darwin.

> [C] certainly sucks as a "high level" language.

It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> C has held back software development more than any other language
>> invented.
>
> It accelerated Darwin.
>
>> [C] certainly sucks as a "high level" language.
>
> It's not a high level language. Maybe Pascal would fit.

Hey, don't start with the Pascal bashing. It and Fortran are the only
languages I know.

Maybe I shouldn't go around telling people that?