Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
August 1990 -> August 13 - 17
Apollo BBS Archive - August 13 - 17, 1990
Mail from John Cummings
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 20:54:48
Shucks, Rod, to be honest with you, I skipped Jeff's posts, so I
don't know what he said.
However, both he and you have repeated the theme you did above, to
wit:"why would anyone want to promote the belief that unless someone
believes in the son of a cwertain person that they, in some way, will be
chastised?"
Now, please let me say this one more time: some parents, some
ministers, some authority figures have used the fear of hell to scare
people. You may properly criticize them for doing so. Christian theology, (I
repeat) does NOT teach that. It teaches that man has the free will to
choose God or not to. If man exercises that free will and chooses "not God"
then that's what he gets: "not God" which is also called Hell, etc. etc.
Those who believe strongly in and love God conceive of this as the
worst pain-the loss of God-- You, obviously, don't consider it such. If you
follow the argument, you'll see that I don't really consider it much of a
topic to debate. Organized religion agrees with you that it is wrong to
warp a child' mind. So what's new?
I think a more intersting topic might be that the human demand for,
need for, longing for Justice is perhaps satisfied by the concept of hell,
and so even atheists can then see it's value. What do you think? -John C--
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:I see no advantage for a hell concept especially since it has nothing
2:whatsoever to back it up.
3:
4:As far as justice goes I really do not see the crime, so to speak. We are
5:here in animal hide for a very short while. To lose this animal hide at any
6:point in a persons life is no real loss whether it be me or anyone else.
7:
8:I see this earth-home as a dirt ball which has no intelligent life. I see
9:the human as flesh eating animals who for the most part are just greedy
10:savages.
11:
12:I see no redeeming qualities displayed by life on this planet and if it were
13:to suddenly disapear from existence then I see no loss at all.
14:
15:It is not a fun world nor is it a good world. It is interesting to look
16:into our childrens eyes at the same time that a thief is ripping our stereo
17:from our automobile.
18:
19:I would perfer to be a part of free energy that could go at will to any
20:place I choose and at the speed of light. To be able to make love in that
21:form would be a great satisfaction. I would have many offspring.
Message: 4111
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
Subject: TQMS (1 of ?)
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 00:41:45
T.Q.M.S. (Time to Quit, Management Sucks!)
As a direct result of the Administration's cooling off of the economy, we
are forced to reduce our staff size. Under TQMS, older employees will go on
early retirement, thus permitting retention of lower-paid, younger people
who represent our future plans.
Therefore, a program to phase out older people by the end of the current
fiscal year, via retirement, will be placed into effect. The program will
be known as RAPE (Retired-Age Personnel Workers).
Employees who are RAPEd will be given the opportunity to seek other jobs
within the organization, provided while they are being RAPEd, retirement
takes place. This phase of the operation is called SCREW (Survey of
Capabilities of REtired Workers).
All employees who have been RAPEd and SCREWed may also apply for a higher
review. This phase is called the SHAFT (Study by Higher Authority Following
Termination).
Program policy dictates that employees may be RAPEd once, SCREWed twice, but
may get the SHAFT as many times as management dictates.
If an employee follows the above procedures, he/she will be entitled to get
HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel's Early Severance). As HERPES
is considered a benefit plan, any employee who has received HERPES will no
longer be RAPEd or SCREWed by the company.
Management wishes to assure the younger employees who remain on board that
the company will continue its policy to ensure that employees are
well-trained through our Special High-Intensity Training (SHIT). The
company takes pride in the amount of SHIT our employees receive. We have
given our employees more SHIT than any company in this area. If any
employee feels he/she does not receive enough SHIT on the job, see your
immediate supervisor. Your supervisor is specially trained to make sure
that you receive all the SHIT you can stand.
Message: 4113
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
Subject: Shit List (1 of ?)
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 00:50:08
Ghost Shit: The kind where you feel the shit come out, but there is no shit
in the toilet.
Clean Shit: The kind where you shit it out, see it in the toilet, but there
is nothing on the toilet paper.
Wet Shit: The kind where you wipe your butt 50 times and it still feels
unwiped, so you have to put some toilet paper between your butt and your
underwear so you won't ruin them with a stain.
Second Wave Shit: This happens when you're done shitting and you've pulled
your pants up to your knees, and you realize that you have to shit some
more.
Pop-A-Vein-In-Your-Forehead Shit: The kind where you strain so much to get
it out, you practically have a stroke.
Lincoln Log Shit: The kind of shit that is so huge you're afraid to flush
without breaking it into little pieces with the toilet brush.
Gassy Shit: It's so noisy, everyone within earshot is giggling.
Drinking Shit: The kind of shit you have the morning after a long night of
drinking. Its most-noticeable trait is the skid marks on the bottom of the
toilet.
Corn Shit: (should be self-explanatory)
Gee-I-Wish-I-Could-Shit Shit: The kind where you want to shit but all you
do is sit on the toilet and fart a few times.
Spinal Tap Shit: That's where it hurts so bad you'd swear it was leaving
you sideways.
Wet Cheeks Shit (aka The Power Dump): The kind that comes out of your butt
so fast your butt sheeks get splashed with water.
Liquid Shit: The kind where yellowish-brown liquid shoots out of your butt
and splashes all over the toilet bowl.
Mexican Shit: It smells so bad your nose burns.
Upper-Class Shit: The kind of shit that doesn't smell.
The Surprise Shit: You're not even at the toilet becaus you are sure you're
about to fart, but OOPS!!! - SHIT!!
The Dangling Shit: This shit refused to drop in the toilet even though you
know you are done shitting. You just pray that a shake or two will loosen
it out of there.
Message: 4120
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
Subject: Read on (1 of ?)
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 01:33:13
Little Johnny was 12 years old and like other boys his age, rather curious,
he had been hearing quite a bit about "courting" from older boys and
wondered what it was and how it was done. One day he took the question to
his mother, who became rather flustered. Instead of explaining things to
Johnny, she told him to hide behind the curtains one night and watch his
elder sister and her boyfriend. This he did. The following morning, Johnny
described everything to his mother.
"Sis and her boyfriend sat and talked for a while. Then he turned off most
of the lights. Then he started kissing and hugging her. I figured Sis must
be getting sick, because her face started looking funny. He must have
thought so too, because he put his hand inside her blouse to feel her heart,
just like a doctor would. Except he's not as smart as the doctor, because
he seemed to have trouble finding her heart."
"I guess he was getting sick too, because pretty soon both of them started
panting and getting out of breath. His other hand must have been cold,
because he put it under her skirt. About this time, Sis got worse and began
to moan and sigh and squirm around and slide down toward the end of the
couch. This was when the fever started, because Sis told him she felt
really hot."
Little Johnny continues: "Finally I found out what was making them sick - a
big eel had gotten inside his pants somehow. It jumped out of his pants and
stood there. About 10 inches long - honest! Anyway, he grabbed it in one
hand to keep it from getting away."
"When Sis saw it, she got really scared. Her eyes got big and her mouth
fell open and she started calling out to God and stuff like that. She said
it was the biggest one she'd ever seen - I should tell her about the ones at
the lake."
"Anyway, Sis got brave and tried to kill the eel by biting it's head off.
All of a sudden, she made a noise and let the eel go. I guess it bit her
back. Then she grabbed it with both hands and held it tight while he took a
muzzle out of his pocket and slipped it over the eel's head to keep it from
biting again."
"Sis laid back and spread her legs so she could get a scissor-lock on it,
and he helped her by lying on top of the eel. The eel put up one hell of a
fight!! Sis started moaning and squealing, and her boyfriend almost upset
the couch. I guess they wanted to kill the eel by squeezing it between
them."
Little Johnny continues, still: "After a while, they both quit moving and
gave out a great sigh. Her boyfriend got up, and sure enough, they killed
the eel. I knew it was dead because it just hung there limp and some of its
insides were hanging out. Sis and her boyfriend were a little tired from
the battle, but they went to courting anyway. He started hugging her and
kissing her again. By golly, the eel wasn't dead!! If jumped straight up
and started fighting again. I guess eels are like cats; they have nine
lives or something."
"This time, Sis jumped up and tried to kill the eel by sitting on it. After
a 35-minute struggle, they finally killed the eel. I knew it was dead
because I saw Sis' boyfriend peel its skin off and flush it down the
toilet."
Message: 4123
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
Subject: The Life of a Dick
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 01:45:17
It ain't easy being a dick!
I've got a head I can't think with,
an eye I can't see out of,
I have to hang around with two nuts all the time,
closest neighbor is an asshole,
worst of all - my owner beats me all the time!
And, my best friend is a pussy!
And now, because of AIDS, I have to wear this rubber suit and throw up all
over myself!!
Message: 4127
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Question ?
Subject: Pat/shit
Date: 08/19/90 Time: 04:07:58
Could it be at all possible that in the scheme of things that good old shit
is more valuable than the animal from which it came?
I mean, shit has a purpose, a very important one but what purpose do man
have?
Shit, as it turns out is more important to our environment than the human.
Perhaps we had it backwards all along, hmmmm.
Rod
Message: 68591
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/Religion
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 20:02:10
Gee, Rod, you have the entire Holy Roman Catholic Church on your
side on that point, not to mention the Lutherans (all branches),
Episcopalians, and I don't know how many others. Matter of fact, most of
them agree with the standard Christian theological point that if a person
believes Niterc, firmly and fully, and tries to live his life according to
what he understands to be Niterc's wishes, then that person escapes Hell,
and goes direct to Heaven, don't pass GO, don't stop for $200.
Now, I know an interesting philosophical/theological argument which
states that an atheist doesn't get that break. If an atheist holds to
atheism, he goes to a special Hell. Now, I don't support that argument, but
it is interesting, at least.
Message: 68592
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Answer!
Subject: Beck on Pollution
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 20:04:24
Sandi is not a "son." You may be mixed up about a lot of things, but
that shouldn't be one of them. And when did Bill Fields say that? I don't
remember it. --John C.--
Message: 68593
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi/ Jeff B.
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 20:12:00
Aw, go ahead, Sandi, argue with him. You have not only
justification, you have the facts, and it is kind of fun to show him the
facts and listen to him spout his feelings, which don't need facts, they
only confuse. --John C.--
Message: 68594
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 21:37:33
Well thank you, Ann, it's awfully nice to feel welcome!
- Gordon
Message: 68595
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: comment
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 22:20:50
It's a manual choke.
Message: 68596
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod on God
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 22:36:33
My question would be, why would God have to prove himself to you by
revealing Himself to you directly? God does not have to prove His existence
to anyone. God has revealed His thoughts to us via the Bible, and has
revealed His divine nature to us through Christ.
And no, I'm not one who says (nor feels he has the authority to say)
that "all rock stars" or "Carl Sagan" is going to hell. Why don't you ASK me
what I think rather than trying to speak for me?
Message: 68597
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hi Mr R...
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 22:51:58
You're doing it again. "no you say because all Catholic Priests are
going to lleh." "no you say because tv preachers are of the devil." "no you
say because the Denny's I'm thinking of is a gay hangout."
Wherever you got the strange idea that you've become an expert on Daryl
Westfall, please think again. You are not desiring to know what I think;
rather you are attempting to do my thinking for me. Well, I'm certainly glad
that I am nowhere near the closed-minded homophobic extremist zealot you
wish you could make me. It just shows that you not only misunderstand me
(and most Christians), but that you would rather keep flawed data stored in
your brain disk rather than updating it with correct information. FATAL
ERROR. INABILITY TO SAVE DATA. REFORMAT.
Message: 68598
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff on Me
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 23:02:59
What does Rod care what God thinks? Who is being selfish and depraved
here? Rod seems to be the one who is complaining because God won't play
checkers the way he wants to. Rod seems to be the one who delights in
persecuting God's followers. Rod seems to be the one intent on smearing
offal in God's face (as if he would ever have the chance).
Of course you can't see that because you are too busy being Rod's yes-
man.
To be entirely honest, I must say that I was quite impressed with (what
is for Rod at least) a surprising amount of self-control in reply to my
messages.
On the other hand, your messages smack of a "my Daddy is a mean old man"
childishness concerning God. You are so preoccupied with his judgments that
his love and forgiveness whiz right by your head. Not that it is important
that only God is omniscient and is the only one apart from the individual
that truly knows what is in that person's heart and mind. Not that it is
important that He judges fairly. No, it is the fact that he DOES judge that
gets you all hot under the collar.
Message: 68599
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff on God
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 23:06:58
"I know that if I was an incredibly advanced being, never mind omnipotent, I
shouldn't want to waste my time in the company of a bunch of nose-picking
hairless apes..."
I'm glad that God has a better handle on his attitude than you do.
"...who half the time respond to my divine qualities like swine trampling
pearls."
You mean, people like yourself and Rod?
Message: 68600
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod on God
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 23:11:44
I believe that we should work to help each other. But I also believe
that if we do not see God as our source of everything good that we have at
our disposal to meet such an end, that our efforts are useless. (I say this
because you mentioned that if we all helped each other that it wouldn't
matter if we worshipped God or not.)
Message: 68601
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod on US
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 23:25:07
Of course you are pre-assuming that all Christians back Bush's effort.
Where is the killing? Who is threatening chemical weapons? Who is invading
oil-rich land that does not belong to them?
Certainly it can't be blamed on the Christians this time.
Message: 68602
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Answer!
Subject: Finally, Rod...
Date: 08/12/90 Time: 23:39:30
(I may have already said something about this already, but...)
The guy that broke into my mother's house and stole some of her stereo
equipment broke into her house AGAIN and ripped off the rest of it, along
with some more jewelry and personal mementos of great personal value. The
neighbor that called 911 saw him in my mom's backyard, loading the turntable
and speakers into his waiting car in the alley, says he saw her as she first
noticed him in my mom's backyard, SMILED, and calmly continued to pack his
car with her belongings.
If he is caught, do you seriously think that informing him that his
actions have resulted in higher insurance rates and alarm installation fees,
is going to reform him?
If he IS caught, she plans to press full charges.
If SHE catches him coming into her house to try and take what little he
has left behind, he will experience a .44 vasectomy.
Message: 68603
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: last on .44
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 00:10:42
A turn table is NOT worth taking a persons life for, or giving him
a 'vasectomy'. You can only shoot if your LIFE is in danger, not personal
property.
Pssst... 'get him to hold it over his head (the turntable or
something heavy) and have him face you from no more then nine feet away,
then blow the sucker away.'... but don't tell anyone I told you this.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 68604
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: language
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 02:40:03
What is it we are asserting when we assert that one event is causally
connected with another?
Message: 68605
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger/light
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 02:52:29
I am unfamiliar with these terms: however, treating them purely in terms of
symbolic relationships, let me see if I can analyze your statement:
A photon is a particle. A photon is also a quanta. A photon has no mass.
A quanta is a packet. A photon is a packet. This photon/quanta/packet has
energy. The photon/quanta/packet has a frequency. This frequency depends
on the energy in a manner that is directly proportionate.
You then state that a packet/quanta/photon receding away from an observer
would seem to have lower energy and thus a lower frequency.
There appears to be something missing to connect this conclusion with your
propositions. Please do not think me flippant; my ignorance renders me
incapable of infering what must seem implicitly obvious to you.
Message: 68606
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger/infinite mass
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 02:57:24
How can infinity be spoken of as a limit? A limit must be continuously
approachable. One cannot approach infinity by increasing a finite value by
a finite amount, whether that amount is exponentially larger than the first
summand or not. Ten sextillion is no closer to any transfinite cardinality
than ten.
Message: 68607
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Sandi
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 03:10:54
There is no such thing as a "stark numerical fact." A number carries no
empirical information; one must interpret it, and interpretations are open
to question. Furthermore, aside from questions of correct interpretation,
one can also question the integrity of the data. Even more importantly, a
statement to the effect that you have seen numbers which support your
assertions proves nothing. I have already stated that I have seen numbers
which support my contention. More importantly, I have given these numbers
along with their source, and not attempted to obfuscate with categorical
statements that statistics don't lie. That statement is irrelevant, since
the users of statistics often lie.
I have never used the arguments you attributed to me in quotations in
message number 68588. You attack a straw man.
Your statement regarding the lessening of pollution is a red herring. That
pollution has lessened has not been a point of contention; merely the reason
for such a lessening. More importantly, I have demonstrated that,
regardless of how much more efficient today's cars are in terms of reducing
emissions (and they unquestionably are, when not tampered with), cars are
still a subtantial contributor to air pollution, and therefore the twenty to
fifty percent across the board reduction in auto emissions which you
attribute to the oxygenated fuels program must be considered of immense
practical significance.
I have never asserted on general principle that "everything is getting
worse," and I certainly never based a line of argument on such an assertion.
Message: 68608
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Fields
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 03:14:08
The statement need not be used literally. Nor must it be a verbatim quote.
It is enough that W.C. Fields uttered words to that effect.
Message: 68609
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 03:19:23
My messages do not smack of a "my Daddy is a mean old man" childishness
concerning god. Nor am I preoccupied with his judgements. Nor does the
"fact" that he judges me get me all hot under the collar.
This is so, because my messages do not concern God, which is an imaginary
entity, but rather, your concept of God.
Message: 68610
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: 68599
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 03:20:48
I'm so glad you feel comfortable speaking God's mind for him. Strange,
though...it seems remarkably similar to yours, in every particular...
Message: 68611
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger on vacation
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 07:44:22
Carmel and Monterey are two of the most beautiful spots on earth. Nice place
to visit on vacation er? It's been years since I've been there - hope it
hasn't changed much.
Re: Smog in L.A. - when people start complaining about the smog here - they
just don't know what real smog is! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68612
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Rod
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 07:50:55
Re: your ..... "it just shows that you not only misunderstand me (and
most Christians) .... You forget that Rod was a Christian himself at one
time and probably for a long time. What makes you think he doesn't
understand? -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68613
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Jeff
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 07:56:06
Re: your ... "of course you can't see that because you are too busy being
Rod's yes-man" ..... Jeff is not a yes man any more than I am. We see that
Rod has made some good points.
Yes Rod judges - but arn't you also? -=*) ANN (*=-
P.S. ND - Christians arn't suppose to judge are they?
Message: 68614
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/quantum
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 10:32:24
I'm sure I'm going to get dinged for this. I should have said a
quantum not quanta since quantum is singular. Anyway, we know that
the amount of energy in photon is directly proportional to the frequency
of the photon. The higher the frequency, the more energy there is.
My physics is rusty, but I think you can obtain the energy over time
by integrating V(t). Integration of the sinusoid with respect to time
leads the "area" "under" the curve. The higher the frequency, the higher
the area under the curve, and therefore the more energy. If a photon
is receding from you it has a lower perceived frequency and a lower
perceived energy.
Message: 68615
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff/limits
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 10:44:28
in the equation for mass you showed the relation ship between
velocity and mass. If mass is on the y axis and velocity is on the
x axis (or m and v axis) then you get a curve that looks like this:
M
| *|
| *|
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| * |
| *
----------------------------c---------------V
If you could take velocity to c, mass would be infinite. However, if you are
a tiny bit away from c, mass is not infinite, as v moves closer to c, mass
increases even more and gets closer to infinite mass. So, we say that
mass approaches infinity in the limit as v approaches c. I hope this is
clearer.
Message: 68616
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Entertainment/Movies
Subject: JB and Sandi
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 12:01:33
Sandi - I would not advise giving out your number to ANYONE on this board.
Numbers have a way of getting abused by some of the non-status users the way
Bart Simpson calls the bar. If you don't mind such pranks, go for it. But
be very careful that you send it in mail, if at all, which *I* don't think
you should. Have him send *his* number.
But see, this is all just a set up to get to meet you! I knew I was right!
Message: 68617
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger/photon
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 16:16:37
OK, but you still haven't told me WHY a receding photon is perceived to have
a lower frequency/energy. At least, if you have, I haven't tumbled to it
yet.
Message: 68618
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/infinite mass
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 16:29:25
If you could take velocity to c, mass would be undefined. That is because
in the equation m/SQR(1-v^2), where v is the relative velocity as a ratio
of the speed of light, setting v equal to c sets the denominator equal to
zero, and division by zero is undefined. This is necessarily so: if m/0
equals infinity, then zero times infinity equals m. But m is a variable,
which is the same thing as saying zero times infinity equals whatever you
want.
True, as v moves closer to c, mass gets larger: mass does not get closer to
infinite mass, because as I have stated, you cannot approach a transfinite
cardinality by increasing a finite value by a finite amount, however large.
To say that mass increases without bound as v approaches c is not at all the
same as saying that mass approaches a limit. Mass does not approach a
limit at all; it increases without bound.
In order for infinity to be a limit, it would be necessary that the mass
value approached infinity continuously closer as v approached c continuously
closer. But I have shown that the finite mass value does not, indeed,
cannot approach a transfinite cardinal (i.e., whatever infinity you name).
To put it another way, if L is a limit of f(x), it is necessary that for any
positive number epsilon I name, L-f(x) may be made smaller than epsilon by
decreasing the difference between x and a, where L is the limit of f(x) as x
approaches a. But any number epsilon I care to name will prove that
infinity is not a limit here, since infinity minus any finite value, however
large, is still infinity (L-f(x)=infinity), and infinity is larger than any
epsilon.
Message: 68619
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dee
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 16:30:50
By no means. I have not requested anyone's telephone number.
Message: 68620
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Answer!
Subject: me
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 16:59:46
I was speaking figuratively. Actually, everyone will have to wait till the
next GT for proof that I am A)female and B)a separate entity.
Message: 68621
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JB on light/quanta
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 19:57:31
You should read Richard Feynman's quite readable "QED" about Quantum
Electrodynamics. In fact, I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest
in science, with an ability to reason, but don't have any math or science
background.
Message: 68622
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JB & limits/infinity
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 20:03:55
What are you using as the basis for this reasoning that one can't have
infinity as the limit of a function as the input to that function approaches
some value? You state *as fact* that "you cannot approach a transfinite
cardinality by increasing a finite value by a finite amount, however large".
I say that you *can* approach it, but you can never get there...
Message: 68623
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/photon
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 20:17:58
Because a source that is moving away emitting a photon will emit a photon
at a lower frequency than if the source was at rest with respect to the
receiver. Since the frequency is lower, the energy is lower.
Message: 68624
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: limits of mass
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 20:22:48
I think we are saying the same thing. I am saying that mass approaches
infinity in the limit or:
lim f(v) -> infinity
v->c
where f(v) is the equation for mass that you quoted before.
This is verbalized as the limit of mass approaches infinity as v approaches
c. You can see that the equation is not ambiguous.
Message: 68625
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: War!
Subject: Iraq
Date: 08/13/90 Time: 21:58:46
So, when do we get to blow up some stuff?
Message: 68626
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Bulletins
Subject: Name change ???
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 00:32:25
Jeff Lochansky will now be known as 'Mad Max'. This is his Apollo
users name from now on. Mail to Jeff Lochansky needs to be addressed to
'Mad Max'.
Personally I think it would have been better for Jeff Beck to go
back to using his real name of Mark Adkins.... but I'm only the SysOp and
don't have much say in matters such as this. sigh!
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 68627
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: limits
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 00:43:35
What I am using as the basis for my reasoning is nothing less than the
formal definition of a limit, Cauchy's famous "epsilon-delta" definition.
It is to be found in any mathematical dictionary or any mathematical text-
book which formally defines the concept of limit (of a function). Let f(x)
be defined for all x in an interval about x=a, but not necessarily at x=a.
If there is a number L such that to each positive number epsilon there
corresponds a positive number delta, such that ABS[f(x)-L] < epsilon,
provided that 0 < ABS[x-a] < delta, we say that L is the limit of f(x) as
x approaches a.
In the case under discussion, you are claiming that L equals some
transfinite cardinality. Since f(x) is a finite number (albeit a larger and
larger one as x approaches a), L-f(x) is equal to L; this is so, because one
does not increase or decrease a transfinite cardinality by adding or
subtracting a finite number. Therefore, since I can always name an epsilon
less than ABS[f(x)-L] (since L is a transfinite cardinality), this function
does not have such a limit. In fact, it has no limit. Instead of
clustering closer and closer about some number L, f(x) increases without
bound as x approaches a. A similar example, taken from an elementary
calculus textbook, is the function cot(theta), as theta approaches zero. In
this case, f(x) increases without bound; there is no limit.
Therefore, since I have shown that your suggested limit of the function in
question is not, according to formal definition, a limit, I need not respond
to your other objection. But I will. I state *as fact* that you cannot
approach a transfinite cardinality by increasing a finite value by a finite
value, because it is demonstratably factual. For let us assume that one
finite number *is* closer to a transfinite cardinal than is another finite
number. Let us symbolize this transfinite cardinality with "aleph-null",
the cardinality of an enumerably infinity. In order for the finite number
1,000,000 to be closer to aleph-null than the finite number 10, it is
necessary that aleph-null - 1,000,000 < aleph-null - 10. But this is not
so; aleph-null minus any finite number is still aleph-null. You are no
closer at 1,000,000 to aleph-null than you are at 10.
Again, you are confusing the concept of approaching some value, with the
concept of increasing without bound. The two are irreconcilable, as the
definition of a limit shows.
Message: 68629
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: light
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 00:45:22
Why should "a source that is moving away (from an observer) emit a photon
at a lower frequency than if the source was at rest with respect to the
observer" ?? The frequency of photon emission depends on the oscillations
of sub-atomic particles, which in no wise depends upon the relative motion
of gross celestial bodies.
Message: 68630
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: SysOp
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 00:58:22
I thought you previously expressed no objections to the name "Mad Maxx" ?
Message: 68631
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Last - names
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 09:19:53
Well, since JT still is only dropping mail to Cliff once a year, I'm still
going with JB for Jeff Beck.
Message: 68632
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: News Today
Subject: Rain
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 13:45:35
Bored, bored, bored. And I can't do a darn thing about it. All the
underpasses are totally flooded. At least I still have elect)&^(&Y)#$
Message: 68633
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff Beck
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 15:35:55
I PREFER when a person uses their real name. But I accept handles
as long as they don't get too silly. I also PREFER once a user picks a
log-in-user-name, that s/he sticks with it. There sometimes are things that
happen to over ride these preferences.
I find 'Mad Max' acceptable and we all know who it belongs too.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Message: 68634
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rain
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 15:42:16
They 'TOWED' a car out from UNDER the water at the Bell Road,
I-17 underpass this afternoon. The water was above the guys car roof.
Cars are stuck all over the place on this side of town. I almost
got stuck in my pickup truck this morning.... Dodging stalled cars can get
one in trouble as you must go in deeper water.
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
I wonder if all this rain will help the water table problem?
Message: 68635
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mad Max/ Computers
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 19:55:20
Thanks for your previous tips about EMR on 31st Ave and Thomas. I've
been down there several times, and I'm now involved in building my own AT. I
have to go at it step by step, as the money is available, so it'll be at
least six more months. So far, I have a 101 key keyboard, a $0.00 case and
a rebuilt but guaranteed power supply. (That should be a $40.00 case.)
Eventually, I'll have a 286 motherboard, one floppy and one 20 meg hard
drive, a color board and a modem in there. It is fun already. Thanks again
for your help.
Message: 68636
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: War!
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 20:00:39
We made it through last weekend without any obvious shooting, so I
think we can get through without a war. We have over a hundred thousand
troops there, plus several detachments from other nations, so Saddam missed
his chance. He could have rolled over us and taken Saudi Arabia in a Blitz
push, but now he can't, and I don't think he wants suicide, so maybe we're
safe from a real war. The big question is: will he back out of Kuwait? If
not, will we try to push him back? I hope it doesn't get to that.
Message: 68637
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on .44
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 22:28:34
A mere turntable is not worth taking a life over, but protecting the
sanctity of a home that has suddenly become a criminal's 'convenience
outlet...'
Message: 68638
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff on Me on Jeff
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 22:29:40
Well, I certainly did not expect you to agree with me. But then again,
to do so...
Message: 68639
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on Me on Rod
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 22:35:33
For someone who says that he was once a Christian (and I'm not
saying that he wasn't), he shows himself to be grossly ignorant of the
Scriptures, not to mention the most basic doctrines to be found within.
And someone who has even the most basic knowledge of the Bible, believer
or not, can appreciate it's message of kindness and brotherly love for one
another. I rarely see Rod exercise those attributes in dealing with the
Christian users of this board. I agree that I go overboard at times, but
sometimes it is hard to give love when all you get is a faceful of spit in
return.
Message: 68640
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on Me on Judging
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 22:36:23
You are right, and yes we are.
Jeff, I'm sorry.
Message: 68641
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Me on Theft
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 22:38:27
I'm surprised that only Cliff has responded to my post concerning my
mother's house robberies. I don't believe that Rod's been on since then. Rod
...I am very interested in your response.
Message: 68642
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: War!
Subject: Imposters!
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 23:01:14
It seems that there was an imposter using my name, who left a message
confessing criminal activity. NOTE: I did not post that message. NOTE
further, that I would appreciate receiving a copy of such a message, as it
had already scrolled off before I even knew about it. I would appreciate
your cooperation, as it is likely that the message was left by the same
prankster(s) who managed to screw up my job!
Beware of false rumors, with no evidence, little credence, which spread like
wildfire, and become an issue themselves.
Michael (The Real One) Kielsky (and "I'm [still] the NRA!")
P.S. I would not shy from physical violence against those who persist in
f***ing up other peoples lives! So back off!!!
Thank you.
Message: 68643
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Saddam
Date: 08/14/90 Time: 23:06:12
I heard a theory that he might attack Israel in an attempt to unite all of
the Arabs. I then realized that he has sort of set the ground for that, by
tying the removal of his troops from Kuwait with the cessation of the
Israeli occupation of Palestine and the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Message: 68644
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff B./Oil
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:01:17
Sorry for the long delay in answering, I haven't had time to do any more
than capture messages lately and haven't even had time to read them
offline or begin to answer them until now.
You asked my opinion on rising oil prices, back on the 8th. If left
alone, a free market would maintain the best prices possible over the long
haul, even though some scare-driven price dislocations are to be expected
in any commodity who's supplies may be threatened. The holder of a
commodity should be free to set his own prices. If the replacement price
is expected to go up it is not unreasonable for the seller to try to
account for that in selling the merchandise on hand, just as the seller
would be forced to make less if the replacement price dropped below what
was paid for merchandise on hand, even if nobody would pay enough to
allow a reasonable profit.
Government interference in pricing is based on the false assumption
that the value of a thing can be lowered by decree. You can force down
cash prices artificially, but you discourage production, cause shortages,
and add such difficulty to acquiring the desired commodity that its true
price is now higher than it was before. The overhead costs of
administering government intervention against the free market are also
tremendous, but are hidden in the general budget instead of rightfully
counted as part of the new commodity price.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68645
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:01:36
I have found a deeper bioenergetic continuum. (4,2,8)
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68646
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Hans/Yugo
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:02:07
Without comparing my disabled car figures to the percentages of each
of those vehicles on the road, we can't draw many conclusions from it. We
might infer that most people know better than to take a Yugo out on the
freeway, however.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68647
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pollution
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:03:35
An article in the latest Reason magazine (which was mentioned here
already for its main thrust of doing on-the-road testing to identify
cars which actually pollute instead of wasting time and money testing
the huge majority of cars that do not) discusses alternative fuels
such as the oxygenated type. It says that the great majority of
pollution comes from a minority of vehicles which are not running
properly, and that a change of fuel will not greatly effect these cars.
New cars are being forced to meet lower and lower standards of emissions
even though they long ago passed the point where new cars contribute very
little to air pollution problems. A byproduct of the increased cost of
emissions control devices is that cars cost more. This has caused people
to keep their old cars longer, and the cars which have smog equipment on
them pollute worse than cars without it when that equipment deteriorates
with age.
The researchers quoted in the article say that even older cars which
do not have any smog equipment meet any reasonable emission standard when
they are running properly. Their mobile testing at car shows determined
that well-maintained cars from the 50's and 60's, without any smog
equipment, 'tend to run as cleanly as new models just off the assembly
line.'
Using mobile testing to get the few dirty cars fixed or junked would
actually cut automobile pollution to a fraction of what it now is,
without costly and intrusive mass-inspection programs which waste the
great majority of their efforts on cars which do not need it.
Message: 68648
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cars
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:12:29
I have been following up on the Edsel a little bit and ran across a
couple of books with some Edsel info in them. The main library has a
reference-only book called '50 Years of Lincoln Mercury' which has a
section on the Edsel.
In 1958 they had four models. The top of the line was the Citation.
It was a huge car which could be ordered with a 410 cubic inch engine,
and had the controls for the automatic transmission in the steering wheel
hub. It featured a speedometer guage which revolved past a window in the
dash and turned from blue to red as high speeds were reached. That 410
cube plant made it one of the fastest production cars on the road, and
the company used photos of an Edsel sold to a police department to
advertise that you had to have an Edsel to catch an Edsel.
The next model was the Corsair, then the Pacer, and then the Ranger.
In 1959 the grill was redesigned to less resemble a horse collar, and
the lack of demand caused the Citation and Pacer to be dropped, along
with the fancy touches like the trick shifter and speedo. Near the end
of 1959, production had begun on the 1960 Edsels, but the whole line
was scrapped before year end. The 1960 cars didn't really look like
Edsels, just 1960 Fords with big tail lights and a little tiny emblem
on the front. The 1960 convertible is the rarest Edsel, only 69 made.
Only 2809 Edsels of all models were made as 60's. The best looking one,
the '59, offered only one convertible model, the Corsair. Top engine
available was the 361 cubic inch V8. It's too bad the neat features of
the 58's didn't last into the better looking 59's.
Message: 68649
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cars
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:21:13
I am reading a very interesting book from the main library now, called
"Encyclopedia of American Cars 1946 to 1959". It has a section on every
thing produced and a large section on oddball cars and kits and flying cars
and custom replacement bodies that were available at the time.
When I get my time machine working I am going back to 1957 to special
order 10 or twelve cars for my collection. I'll start with a Buick
Roadmaster convertible for that nice air-ride feel of piloting a battleship
around town. Then maybe the introductory model Pontiac Bonneville. It only
came as a fuel injected convertible, but what the heck. One of those
Chrysler New Yorkers with the 392 Hemi would be okay as a Hardtop for when
the weather is too severe for a convertible. The '57 fuel injected Corvette
had the highest power to weight ratio of all the Corvettes made, as far as I
know. All in all, it would be a heck of a year to shop in.
Is there anything anybody would like me to pick up for them while I'm
there?
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68650
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Cliff on Cars
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 00:45:47
If the people would realize that their car is not going to survive going in
6 feet of water, then they wouldn't have to be towed and you wouldn't have
to dodge them.
I heard that people were going under the water and resurfacing on the other
side. Real smart. No one can see you under there and if you DO stall,
some other idiot is liable to run into you!
Stupid west-side red-neck truckers.
Message: 68651
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Ann on Daryl on Rod
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 01:45:41
Let's remember that this IS the public board.
Message: 68652
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Joke
Subject: Daryl/68640
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 01:46:23
Yes, you certainly are. :)
Message: 68653
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/intervention
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 02:01:52
You may have a point there, but let me ask you: what overhead costs of
administering government intervention against the free market are there,
that aren't already budgeted in the sense that those departments are already
funded? Also, and I am not suggesting this as a course of action, what is
the cost of twisting the arm of big business? It's blackmail, of course,
but in the area of corporate taxation and auditing...
I am not sure that I understand how a hands-off economy will insure the best
prices. There are several strategies for obtaining the highest profit,
from the business standpoint. One strategy is pure competition, to
undercut, in some manner, the competing businesses. They in turn, however,
might feel obliged to reciprocate, in order to keep their market share.
Such price wars are good for the consumer, but undesirable from the business
perspective, and we are after all discussing the behavior of big business
and its consequences on society.
If the main players are few in number (as they are in the oil industry), it
is often preferable for companies to agree not to undercut each other. Oil
is a necessary commodity, and people are going to grumble over higher
prices, but within limits, they *will* reconcile themselves to paying them;
they have no choice. If the companies are willing to work together in this
fashion, and can resist the temptation to try and get away with
undercutting, thereby gaining a short term profit (which is what motivates a
lot of executives), they can do better by *not* competing with each other.
This is not to say that a certain limited pseudo competition cannot take
place...after all, there can be no formal price fixing for legal reasons
(the hand of government again), but in reality, there is little competition
from a price standpoint.
After all, if you, Rod, and I, own the supply of Groggles, and everyone
literally needs Groggles, a better strategy for us would be to agree not to
allow the price of Groggles to fall below a certain level -- and that is
exactly what the oil companies have done. They may blame refinery
capacities for the failure of oil prices to drop when there is a glut, but
it is not beyond these companies to manipulate this state of affairs
into existence, even if their claim were true.
Message: 68655
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Reason magazine
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 02:12:57
We should always ask who is saying something, why they might say it, and
what the expected impact of their statement is.
What is the slant of Reason magazine? Who is their audience, and what is
their agenda? Who are their main advertisers?
Message: 68656
Author: $ Daryl Westfall
Category: Religion
Subject: Rod / 68529
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 07:14:56
"Imagine what has happened from early writing in Hebrew, through Greek, to
old English...to now."
Rod, you are forgetting that modern Bible translations are not merely
"updated" adaptations of the King James Version. Any credible Biblical
translator is going to work from the available Greek and Hebrew texts,
from the incredibly large amount of ancient copies available. And
considering the number of sources available to a Bible translator or
language scholar, it is quite amazing to find that the texts are nearly
identical with each other, and vary usually with a misspelled word or other
minor copyist's error (the accuracy of the sources available is amazing when
you consider that the only means of duplication was hand-copying). There is
no Christian doctrine that is affected by any of these minor incidences. Why
is this? Because the copies were generated by men who feared God and
respected His word. Unlike today.
And seeing that Bible translators use the oldest documents available in
the original tongues (and not from other translations), your argument
against the accuracy of Biblical text doesn't hold water. That is, unless
you are suggesting that a Hebrew or Greek scribe who was given the task of
copying Scripture could not understand the language he has been given the
task of copying? (Which is probably the speaking language of his time.) That
would be akin to giving an illiterate the task of copying the Encyclopaedia
Britannica.
Message: 68657
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: attack israel
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 07:39:17
attack israel and learn first-hand the joys of one-way nuclear war.
Message: 68658
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Cliff on rain
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 09:35:07
We woke up this morning and our back yard was half way flooded. Northern and
51st is also flooded. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68659
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on Rod
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 09:47:00
I do not find him 'grossly ignorant of the Scriptures.' Don't all people to
a point interpret them individually? Religions? Since I have had experience
with the doctrines of lets say orthodox churches - Catholic, Lutheran, etc,
- which lay down the laws so to speak very defined. I find it curious to
hear other's opinions on this board where you, they seem to interpret the
way you see it! I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that - I try to
learn from you, others AND from Rod also. That is one of the ways I come to
my own personal conclusions. Re: Rod - even though we do not have the same
beliefs - I see truth is what he says, asks! Not that I mean that is the
truth, or what you say is either, or may I add what I believe in! I
personally don't think anyone knows - but we all choose to believe in what
we want - the bottom line. We all should keep that in mind too and respect
one another. No offence here Daryl - PLEASE! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68660
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Daryl on apology
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 09:49:44
Good going Daryl. It's hard to apologize at times. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68661
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Reason magazine
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 10:58:59
I highly doubt that they're running full-page, full-color ads for
twenty-year-old Fords and Oldsmobiles. The new-car(and foreign car) lobby is
very strong. It would take an act of guts for some media to come out with
something saying that there really hasn't been all that great of improvement
in the last decade or so in some area.
Message: 68662
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jeff B/prices
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 15:48:27
Yes, the waste of government intervention against the free market is
already there. We are being taxed to keep it in existance, and then we are
forced to pay for the damage again every time it is used. A free market does
not tolerate monolpolies. The unrealistic prices monopolizers charge spur
others to find new sources of the same thing, or new ways of getting away
from the use of it. Only through government help can an industry maintain a
status quo of near monopoly power.
If we assume that you, Rod, and I have a monopoly on these Groggles, and
want to maximize our income from them, then lets look at it with and without
government intervention. Without it, people would be looking for ways to get
groggles from somewhere else, or find a substitute for them to avoid paying
us too great a price. This would lead to some kind of competition that would
force us to moderate our prices in order to compete, unless Groggles were so
impossible to produce or do without that they had virtually no parallel in
history.
In the case where government intervenes, we would do like every other
regulated industry does. In return for making our production inefficient and
loaded down with bureaucratic nonsense, we would use our position as a
critical industry to get government to restrict everything from imports to
distribution, and maybe even subsidize us in bad times. By encouraging ever
more stringent and costly oversight of our own operations we could make sure
that no startup operation would ever be able to afford to get into the
business and compete with us on any smaller scale. If one did pop up,
we could always call in the favors of the army of bureaucrats who owe their
living to us to make things rough on them.
Once a company is big enough to be able to afford to do business in the
horrible, backward, manner that government involvement requires, it is in
its best interest to see that everyone who would try to build up a business
from the point where they can not afford such foolishness does not get the
chance. Everything we buy costs more because of the waste that went into it,
and because of the competition that wasn't there due to bureaucratic costs
pruning the competition.
Note that all government energy projects explore methods which have a
political constituency and that those projects are uniformly expensive and
wasteful. They develop things the market doesn't want because to do
otherwise might endanger the health of the government's greatest ally, the
large, regulated, protected, corporation. It is beyond government's
abilities to develop things the market wants anyway, as the Soviets could
tell you, but by diverting the money out of private hands and wasting it on
what amounts to publicity campaigns, they serve the needs of the entrenched
and satisfied business concern more than they do anyone else.
As it has been said many times, a free market corrects its mistakes
quickly, government mistakes are forever.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68664
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff B/Reason
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 16:11:59
Reason magazine is put out by a libertarian foundation. It advertises
mainly ideas, in the form of other magazines, books, events, groups, etc.
The slant is strictly freedom of choice. Their motto is "Free minds, free
markets".
If the article had come out in favor of more invasive testing proceedures
and/or spending more money on emissions testing instead of less, it would
probably not have been printed in Reason. The case for mobile testing to
find actual polluters and leave everyone else alone is an excellent one
however, and it is things like this that make Reason a valuable source of
otherwise hard to find information.
Yes there is a clear bias here in favor of the freedom to own and drive
individual automobiles. It is plainly expressed in other articles in the
same issue which debunk anti-car positions and express disdain for the
mentality which has always seen private cars as something which should not
be afforded to the common man.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68665
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Daryl/translation
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 17:22:07
But Bible translations are not "nearly identical." They do not use
identical symbols (words); that is, not merely a difference in form, but one
of meaning, as well. Granted that translations are based on original text
(we will presently overlook the problem of distinguishing "authentic" texts
from apocrypha), they are still translations. One does not, in creating a
sensible translation, merely substitute synonymous symbols. Such a literal
translation would not be complete. The translator must decide what the
meaning of the original authors symbols are, not simply as synonyms, but in
use. That is, the translator must decide what the author is trying to say.
Even when translating secular works, one translation may result in one
meaning, while another translation may result in another meaning. Where
religious documents are concerned, there is in addition to the linguistic
problem the factor of religious bias. A Catholic translator is not going to
produce a translation identical to that of a fundamentalist. Nor are
the works of individual fundamentalists homogeneous (nor individual
Catholics).
Message: 68666
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann on scriptures
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 17:26:09
Yes, excellent point. In addition to the interpretation of the translator,
we must deal with the interpretation of a reader; an interpretation of the
translator's interpretation of the original author. One need only listen to
various sermons given by individual ministers using the same Bible, to
understand how subjective these things are.
Message: 68667
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi/Reason
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 17:27:31
Of course not. But what does that have to do with my question?
Message: 68669
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/free-market
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 18:39:38
"A free market does not tolerate monopolies. The unrealistic prices
monopolizers charge spur others to find new ways of getting away from the
use of it. Only through government help does an industry maintain a
status quo of near monopoly power."
Empirical evidence does not support these contentions. The massive,
overbearing trusts operated by men like Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie and
Vanderbilt, flourished. Certainly, they did not manage this through
government legislation.
How do you define "unrealistic" prices? True, the market demand will
generally be less the higher the price that is set, but that simply means
that the monopolist presumably will set that price which maximizes his
profits, given his estimate of how necessary his product is and how far he
can push the market. No doubt many people are spurred to find alternative
sources of energy, they have been questing for a long time, and so far,
they either haven't found it or haven't been able to implement it.
Why should anyone within the oil industry (or any other near monopoly) lower
prices, when they can go with the flow and share in the fat profits?
Why compete with each other, when they can support each other and thereby
individually reap a greater profit than if they were cutting each other's
(and their own) throats?
I do agree, however, that the government is corrupt and works in collusion
with the monopolists (agriculture, steel, oil, transportation, bankers...)
Message: 68670
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/Reason
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 18:50:19
So, far from being a more or less objective examiner of issues (such as
Scientific American might be considered to be), Reason has a libertarian
bias, and can be expected to support on principle articles, conclusions, and
research which advances the libertarian agenda.
"Free minds, free markets". Very noble sounding. Unfortunately, one man's
freedom is another man's oppression. I do not have the faith in Adam
Smith's ideal free market that you do; and history shows, it is a faith and
not an empirically supported conclusion. Free market absolutists remind me
very much of socialists in a single respect; each group maintains that
their ideas are valid and workable, and all evidence to the contrary is
dismissed as a perversion of their ideas.
It also occurs to me that from a business standpoint, the libertarians are
every bit as much an ally to Big Business as the conservatives. This is not
to say that all libertarians are insincere, greedy individuals, but merely
that their goals in this instance correspond to the goals of insincere,
greedy individuals (corporations).
Message: 68671
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: JB/Reason
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 19:03:37
What I was saying is that a magazine that accepts lots of ads from new cars
is unlikely to print a story like that. I was not quite certain of what you
were saying, clearly. I see now you meant what views/politics the magazine
caters to.
Message: 68672
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: War!
Subject: Imposters/Liars
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 20:45:01
To set the record straight regarding that message left by some imposter(s),
it contained only two facts:
I once worked at Honeywell, and my sister, Iris, still does. The rest is a
composition of lies, half-truths, and innuendo. If you don't want to take
my word for it, I suggest you contact Honeywell's General Counsel (which
means their private lawyer) John Lishinski, and ask him. Why don't you post
the results here on the board, where everyone may view them.
Michael "for real" Kielsky
Message: 68673
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean H./'57 cars
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 21:19:07
While you're back there in 1957 shopping for dream cars, could you
pick up some parts for me for my '56 Ford F-100 Custom Cab pickup? They are
getting harder and harder to find, in 1990.
And if you skip forward a few years, I think both Sandi and I woyuld
be grateful for some Falcon and Mustang parts from the mid-to late '60s.
And I have to hand it to you, when you get to dreaming, you do a
very good job of it!
Sandi's facts on auto pollution seem to agree with what you posted,
do you agree? --John C.--
Message: 68674
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: All/Environmentalism
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 21:36:02
I think I would like to become an environmentalist. Up till now, I
have been an Albigensian, but all the neat people seem to ecological
environmentalists?
Are there any environmentalists on this board? If so, I'd like to
get some info. I already love spotted owls and tassel-eared squirrels, but I
need someone to explain to me about dolphins.
Why are dolphins such good things, to be protected, while tuna fish
are good for a healthy body? I've eaten dolphin, and I thought it was pretty
good, too. And there are plenty of dolphin out there--it is not like the
sea turtle, which either hides well is losing population.
No, there is something about dolphin which I don't understand. Why
are they different from tuna or redfish or red snapper? Can anyone clarify
this conundrum? --John C.--
Message: 68675
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: parts
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 23:00:22
Anyone have any idea where I could get a windshield wiper switch cable
that's been out of production for like 10 or 15 years? Usually I don't mind
that I don't have windshield wipers. It's been kind of a little problem
lately.
Message: 68676
Author: $ Mad Max
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Attack Israel
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 23:39:29
I heared that, this lonley jewish nation is not taking any C..p from anyone,
most folks there learned their lesson GOOD 45 years ago, and they remember
it.
Message: 68677
Author: $ Mad Max
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Sandi help
Date: 08/15/90 Time: 23:46:15
Can it be made? A few handtools and the old one and some wire of the same
gage and you should be in buissness, would be alot cheaper the buying a new
one. But in case you want to buy one there is a company in the metro area
that specializes in parts for classics and older cars, they are in the
yellow pages, under parts. I don't have acopy of them, otherwise I'd look
them up for you.Let me know if you need more help.
Message: 68678
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Attacking Israel
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 00:34:18
Israel is probably the *ONLY* country where the attackers could outnumber
the total Israeli armes forces by 10 to 1 and there would still be an even
fight. Since it is only 4 minutes by high-speed fighter-bomber from Baghdad
to Tel Aviv, 2 minutes to Jerusalem, you can bet the Israelis are watching
everything. Shamir can have an itchy trigger finger; having Ariel Sharon
(former defense minister andarmy chief of staff) anywhere in the Israeli
cabinet could mean any Israeli strike on Iraq would be a most-destructive
one. Amazing what $3 billion a year buys us.
-Pat
Message: 68679
Author: $ Pat Stoddard
Category: Joke
Subject: Saddam Hussein
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 00:57:55
Need I say more? Well, I could, but.... why don't you call 280-9945
(voice, of course). For the heck of it, pledge some money after the beep.
-Pat
Message: 68680
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: John/what to be
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 01:22:50
How about a sciolist?
You have a head start.
Message: 68681
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: middle east
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 01:37:29
Kuwaiti oil makes up 25% of middle east oil. Combined with Saudi oil, the
two countries make up 60% of world oil.
Obviously, it would be advantageous for Iraq to own them both, but wouldn't
it be almost as advantageous (at least, in the short term) if Iraq could
make the Saudi oil unavailable?
Silly, of course, but a dirty nuclear bomb dropped on Saudi oilfields might
do the trick. Of course, they wouldn't dare do it while our troops are
there, and it might be entirely impractical anyway. But an interesting
notion.
One day soon, technology will advance to the point where it is impossible to
distinguish between certain types of natural disaster, and sabotage. Micro
agents in the form of synthetic "insects" will be the army of the future.
The days of both conventional arms as they are now understood, and nuclear
weapons, will be over. Just as germs invisibly invade an organism to kill
it from within, so the non-living artificial microbes, following the
tropisms built into them, will penetrate gun barrels, cartridge chambers,
tank and plane engines, corroding the metal catalytically, or exploding the
powder charges or fuel tanks. Nuclear weapons will be useless in attacking
them. You might as well fight cold germs with a hammer. Front lines will
dissapear completely. They will imitate floating dust specks, pollen,
gnats, drops of water...but under that mask will lay a corrosive or lethal
agent. They will be able to pierce the human body like bullets, form
optical systems to throw sunlight over wide areas, alter the temperature to
produce heavy rainfall or fair weather.
Message: 68682
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: synsects
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 01:42:34
Of course, these things will not be artificial insects any more than
airplanes are birds of metal.
Peace will become war, and war, peace. Anything might be a covert agent: a
nail in the wall, laundry detergent.
Message: 68683
Author: $ Nick Ianuzzi
Category: Question?
Subject: Ms. Marlin
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 04:04:57
What kind of car do you have?
Message: 68684
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John C/dolphins
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 06:04:04
Dolphins are not fish, for one thing. They are mammals, and apparently
quite intelligent ones at that. That would seem to separate them from tuna,
redfish or snapper. They have also been known to be very friendly to man,
and on many occasions have been instrumental in saving lives, protecting man
from shark attacks, etc. They have also been trained to perform certain
services that could be difficult or even hazardous to man, such as deep sea
retrieval of objects, etc.
As to the spotted owl, I have never seen one, and probably won't, but
somehow don't feel too underpriveleged. Their survival doesn't really bother
me, since it is not in the danger that some environmentalists would have us
believe. What does bother me is some 20-30,000 families put in financial
straits because of a severely cut back logging industry and massive layoffs,
simply to add a few million acres of timber to the already 3 million acres
that are already untouched in the name of preservation. Somewhere along the
way, somebody has to make some sense and readjust priorities in favor of
people.
Message: 68685
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/68315
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 07:46:17
"One cannot say there is no force. Perhaps it would be better to define
force as that which would cause mass to accelerate if not balanced."
Precisely. F= Ma is a vector equation. F and a have a direction associated
with it. If you sum the vector forces on a body at rest on the surface of
the earth, you get two vector forces like this:
|
|
v
^
|
|
When summed, the net force is zero.
Message: 68686
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: jeff/68322
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 07:56:04
Is Newton's third law false because the disappearance of a force causes
the object to fly off at a tangent. No, in fact, it is verification of the
third law. Once an object is in motion, it tends to stay in motion in the
direction of that motion unless acted upon by an outside force. In this case
the velocity vector at any instant in time is tangential to the curve of the
orbit. Thus when the force is removed, the object flys off at a tangent to
the curve.
Message: 68687
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John on Dolphins
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 08:54:32
Tuna are fish - Dolphins are mammals! That explains it doesn't it? Ha ha.
I think what the problem is - the dolphins are getting killed (wasted for
the most part) in the nets the fishermen use for tuna - millions of them a
year. Anything that is wasted is not good. Endangered? I doubt it - at least
not right now. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68688
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on fish etc.
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 09:08:19
That was good about the dolphins and very true. The spotted owl? I haven;t
seen one either and probably never will.
Re: your "Somewhere along the way, somebody has to make some sense and
readjust priorities in favor of people"! ... I only agree with that to an
extent. We need to 'readjust' period and not particularly favor people all
the time - but find a 'medium ground' that helps all. For example, we can't
keep cutting away our forests just because people need jobs. If we continue
to rape the envirionment like we are doing right now, it won't be here for
our great grandkids to enjoy, see?. That goes for the animals also. Going to
the zoo is not the same thing as seeing them in the wilds - their natural
habitat. Re: the spotted owl - who knows? Maybe that species is ready to die
out - it happens constantly without man's intervention. There has been
millions of species that have just died out and will continue to do so. Man
might be next - you know - AIDS! But we just can't think of mankind ALL the
time and to heck with the flora & fauna of this planet. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68689
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: car repair
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 14:32:09
Actually, the part may not be broken, but apparently, it's hard to adjust
and I'm having trouble finding someone who knows about ancient Ford systems
well enough to fix it...and yes, my friends are general automobilaphiles and
they have all given up. (Nor can they find my car's flasher...it burned out
and I haven't had turn signals for months because no one can find the
flasher so I can replace it.)
Message: 68690
Author: $ Sandi Marlin
Category: Answer!
Subject: car
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 14:34:01
a 1962 1/2 Ford Falcon Sport Futura.
Message: 68691
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John C./1957
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 15:44:35
Why think small? Lets go back to Las Vegas in 1957, make a few well chosen
bets, and have enough money to buy you a whole pickup and come home
with the bed full of silver dollars.
See You Later (or earlier),
Dean H.
Message: 68692
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jeff B.
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 16:10:30
I believe that government not only is corrupt and works in collusion with
those who would gain advantage over the market, but I believe that even an
action taken in good faith against the market by government is a mistake and
bound to lead to worse problems than it is intended to fix.
I certainly do believe that freedom is superior to coercion. The trusts you
speak of are always held up as examples to prove that government
intervention is good and the free market bad, but I don't think that is what
they really prove. Transportation, banking, and other monopolies began with
a government franchise and were developed with the government practically in
cahoots with the business from the start. Land grants, government granted
monopolies, and a myriad of other restrictions have always worked against
the free market in this country.
Libertarians want freedom of choice, and an end to the presumption that
the state has a valid right to dispose of the individual and the fruits of
that individual's labor. This freedom can be seen as oppression only by
someone who wants to live by political means, rather than by economic means.
Prices are moderated by supply and demand, and by competition. The free
market does not depend on suppliers deciding not to charge as much as they
can get, it depends on the amount they can get being moderated by the
availability of alternatives. Even if it takes time for these alternatives
to break down a cartel, that should give the state no right to prevent
people from running a business anyway they see fit, as long as the does not
include fraud and coercion. The argument that freedom is bad because it
might be welcomed by big business sounds masochistic. I'll take freedom.
Message: 68693
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/thanks
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 17:53:54
Ok, great, I'm glad you agree. Also -- great graphs! That asymptotal curve
the other day was quite creative.
Message: 68694
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Question?
Subject: Roger/third law
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 18:00:44
"Once an object is in motion, it tends to stay in motion in the direction of
that motion unless acted upon by an outside force."
That's the first law (more or less), not the third. The third states more
or less that whenever one body exerts a force on a second body, the second
body exerts a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
So my question is, where is that equal and opposite force? Such a force
would be radially outward, not tangent to the curve of orbit.
If the gravitational attraction is the centripetal force, then where is the
so-called centrifugal force? Centrifugal force is a fiction created to
balance the equations. So what's the deal?
Similarly, what causes the Earth to bulge outward in proportion to the
linear velocity at that given point?
Message: 68695
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Politics
Subject: Dean
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 18:17:56
I don't use the trust examples to prove that government intervention is good
and the free market is bad. I use the example to prove that government
intervention is not always bad, and the free market is not always good.
Personally, I'm not sure how much good government intervention did in terms
of the trusts. But that isn't my point: my point is that the trusts
represent a failure of the free market to do what its defenders claim. That
is not to say that the free market should be abolished (or even necessarily
restricted); it is to say that the free market is far from the optimal
system which free market absolutists describe, but which only exists in
their fantasies. You claim that there are checks and balances which prevent
those kinds of excesses and economic dictatorships; I merely point out the
examples which disprove that. To blame that state of affairs on government
intervention is naive at best. I'm sure that once those trusts had all of
that money and power, they had plenty of influence over the government. But
the government merely allowed the trusts to amass their wealth and power by
free market means. That is, there is a distinction between individual graft
and government intervention; there was plenty of the former, and very little
of the latter.
You said, "the argument that freedom is bad because it might be welcomed by
big business sounds masochistic. I'll take freedom."
My response to that is, freedom is only absolute when your actions do not
affect others. When you are part of a system, your freedom might result in
my oppression. I do not believe that corporations have the right to screw
the people in order to uphold some nonsensical economic idealism.
Message: 68696
Author: $ Beauregard Dog
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: PV C Club
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 19:01:15
So, Mo Udall is a member of the Paradise Valley Country Club. Has he
resigned his membership? Has anybody been giving *him* a hard time about
being a racist?
Message: 68697
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: War!
Subject: Iraq
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 20:21:51
I don't think we would be able to tell the difference between the gasoline
we now buy, and gasoline that is just a little radio-active. Bring the boys
(or girls) back home, and nuke Iraq back to the stone-age. No sense in
wasting our soldiers' lives, or having nukes which we never get to use.
Either that, or a war which will begin in about 10 days, and last for a
number of years.
Michael Kielsky (the real one, again)
Message: 68698
Author: Michael Kielsky
Category: Vote
Subject: Primaries/Elections
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 20:23:27
If they are an incumbent, throw the bastards out!
Michael "I'm the NRA" Kielsky
Message: 68699
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff B/Sciolism
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 20:36:17
Hey, that might be right! Then again, I know how to use "The
Dunciad" and where it is not apropo, so perhaps a sciolistic approach to the
problem is not correct, either. --John C.--
Message: 68700
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul S/Dolphins
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 20:40:34
I read you loud and clear on owls and forests; but how 'bout those
dolphins? Does their mammalhood protect them to the extent that we harm the
Mexican fishing industry by refusing tuna from boats which endanger dolphin?
Aren't we doing that to the Northwest loggers?
Message: 68701
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Environment/fish
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 20:51:42
Annie, and all, let me get this straight--do we protect the dolphins
because they are mammals and intelligent? And because of the nice stories
about how they helped the drowning boys to land?
Do we extend that same care and concern to other mammals who show
some intelligence and are nice to us? Or is there another element I'm
unaware of which makes dolphins special?
I'm not being facetious or begging the question here--I'm really
curious about this. I think it is almost a fanatical environmental push that
I don't understand: spotted owl, tassel-eared squirrel, snail darter,
dolphin, etc. I hesitate to bring up the toxic waste incinerator because I
mentioned it on another board, and I don't want to go back there and listen
to that any more. --John C.--
Message: 68702
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: All/ACLUness
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 20:55:42
I'm afraid I may be in deep yogurt on the ACLU board. I got caught
in the middle of a flag-burning tirade there, was insulted crudely, came
back with a snide remark to the effect that the flag with which they open
the board has only forty-nine stars, then I called them a bunch of liberal
wimpy pinkos. I won't go back there any more, either. Ah, well.
Message: 68703
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: jeff/curve
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 21:26:01
I learned how to make it look better half way through drawing it, so
the points near c on the x-axis were lousy and pretty good near 0.
Message: 68704
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Answer!
Subject: jeff/third law
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 21:30:54
oh. sorry. ok, the force that is exerted by the body on the earth exists,
but it's effect is so small that it isn't noticeable. However, a large
body such as the moon does exert a force on the earth and causes tides and
the earth to rotate around the center of gravity of the two systems.
When you spin a body with a rope the body does exert a force on you (notice
the tug on your arms?) This force is real as your force exerted on the
object.
Message: 68705
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: War!
Subject: Iraq/Kielsky
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 21:33:12
In fact, that is what I thought Bush might do (use tactical nuclear weapons)
if Hussein invaded Saudi Arabia. Instead he decided to use US troops. Is it
me or do I get the idea the army wants to bloody the troops so that they get
a trained army for this generation ?
Message: 68706
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jeff B./markets
Date: 08/16/90 Time: 22:51:07
I maintain that a free economy is always better than a mixed or controlled
economy. Those early trusts didn't just benefit from government help after
they were rich and powerful, they used it to become established. A free
market does discourage monopolies automatically by the way prices react to
business conditions, and the way investment capital reacts to prices and
opportunities.
My being free to do anything except employ fraud or coercion does not
oppress you in any way. The only system I want to be part of is one in which
fraud and coercion is discouraged and punished, and every other type of
interaction is strictly voluntary. A corporation which existed in this
environment and offered products or services for people to accept or reject
as they saw fit would not be screwing or oppressing anyone.
The greatest example of early trusts which gave all big business a
bad name is the railroad industry. They were given land grants and a
monopoly over routes by the government, because government thought that the
railroads would take too long to be built by private means. The result was
that the railroads had a captive audience and a license to steal. They used
the power of government to discourage the very private rail projects that
the government had supposedly gotten tired of waiting for when those
projects would have meant competition for the government's corrupt and
economically troubled client railroad men.
The story is much the same in other industries. To create and maintain an
effective monopoly you have to be protected from the free market, and the
only power that can do that is state power. The power to forbid competition
Message: 68707
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: John C./68699
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 01:57:29
Touche.
Message: 68710
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 02:48:57
OK, if this equal and opposite force (centrifugal) exists, where is that
component of its motion when the string is cut?
*
True, when I spin the rock on the string around, I feel a pulling on my
arms. But that is not due to gravitational interaction, nor does a pulling
indicate that a force of opposite direction exists; indeed, if such a force
existed one would expect that component to be present in the motion of the
released rock. But it is not. The motion is tangential; that is the
true direction of inertial motion.
Message: 68712
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: fraud and coercion
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 02:56:53
Fraud and coercion are not the only forms of oppresion. There is
exploitation, manipulation, subjegation and concentration (AMEN!!)
Ahem.
There is also endangerment, abuse of natural resources, etc...
Your statement that "to create and maintain an effective monopoly you have
to be protected from the free market, and the only power that can do that is
state power" is not an empirical proposition. You pretend that it is, that
it can be verified or disproved by observation, but it is in fact a
metaphysical statement. The "facts of experience" can never compel you to
abandon your hypothesis, because you will always be willing to make the
necessary ad hoc assumptions necessary to maintain it.
Any observational evidence I might provide, from modern to historical
examples, will be re-interpreted to fit your hypothesis. I do not think it
will be fruitful for either of us to continue this line of discussion unless
you are willing to provide some specific, empirical criteria by means of
which I can cause you to relinquish your notions.
Also, the terms "fraud" and "coercion" are being much abused. They have a
definite legal meaning, but the interpretation of any particular act as
being of a fraudulent or coercive nature, is not always clear-cut.
Personally, I feel that fraud and coercion are ubiquitous in business, in
advertising, marketing, and in corporate processes in general, particularly
where employee and public relations policies are concerned.
Message: 68713
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/criteria
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 02:57:04
Let me be a little more specific; provide me with an example of a true free
market: one operating without government intervention. This is necessary so
that I can provide evidence (as defined by you) that your hypothesis does
not fit observational data, without ad hoc assumptions on your part.
If you cannot provide an example of such a place that we can observe (and
this does not include defunct historical examples, since they are not
observable), then I must continue to maintain that your proposition is not
empirical, and cannot be verified.
Message: 68714
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/the environment
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 05:14:51
How is mankind, or the world for that matter, enriched by the survival of
the spotted owl, Ann? Will anyone be worse off, or their lives shortened, or
their education stilted, if they never see or hear of the spotted owl?
Somehow, I doubt it.
If the habitat of that elusive bird was really being threatened, there
might, just might be a valid argument for the environmentalists. However, if
you study the situation, you will find that that position is not really
valid. The argument is that the spotted owl will only survive in what is
called old growth timber, untouched forests. That is simply not true. THey
have been seen nesting and dong quite well in areas as yong as 5 year
growth. Besides, there are over 3 million acres of forest land in the
northwest that is not being touched by the forest industry.
Secondly, take a look at the so-called "rape" of our forests. Every acre of
forest that is harvested by a timber company is systematically mulched, laid
fallow for two years and then reseeded, in such a way that a new crop of
trees is available every 50 years forever. This doesn't sound much like the
destruction of a natural resource that many bleeding heart environmentalists
wold have us believe, does it? A timber company that ravages it's only
source of supply without a plan for the future is self destructive, and I
think that they're too smart for that.
Add to these items the fact that the industry employs thousands of people,
thereby creating a good standard of living for thousands of families. If the
environmentalists have their way, the welfare lines just get a lot longer.
How much does the spotted owl contribute to the economy? Think about it.
Message: 68715
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John C/dolphins
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 05:24:26
You make a good point, John, except for one thing.
It is possible, and the canning companies (and fishermen) have proven it,
to fish for tuna in dolphin-free waters. Requiring that as a condition of
buying tuna does not endanger the fishing industry to the point of
extinction.
If the do-gooders in the northwest take away the forests they want to claim
for the spotted owl, there will be no more timber industry. I have been in
timber country recently, and have seen the methods used to reforest, as well
as the vast amount of virgin forest that is not being touched by the
industry, and have come to the conclusion that the environmentalists are
blowing into the wind. The timber people are not in fact endangering the owl
habitat. Would that it could be said that the environmentalists are not
endangering thousands of families in their unnecessary efforts to save a few
birds.
Message: 68716
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John C/ACLU
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 05:27:16
That sounds like a typical ACLU ploy. If you don't have an intelligent
argument, just shout louder than anyone else.
Real justice would best be served by the abolition of that "organization".
Message: 68717
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Paul
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 05:43:17
Yes, a timber company that ravages its only source of supply is
self-destructive. That does not change the fact that the forests are
dwindling. A fact that is true around the world, but one that is especially
poignant where the rainforests are concerned.
A timber company is not a being. As such, it cannot possibly have an
instinct for self preservation. The individuals who run these companies are
only interested in short term profit; they are not concerned with the
problems and shortages their short-sighted, destructive, and avaricious
behavior will cause for future generations. Pollution of the environment,
irresponsible use of natural resources, mean nothing to them personally, and
as a consequence, they are not motivated by environmentalist concerns.
Just as our rights are being insidiously eroded, so is the environment.
These things may seem small to you, but they are the "foot in the door".
Message: 68718
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/criteria (more)
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 05:50:43
I must impose certain restrictions on the criteria for disproof that I
requested; restrictions which I feel, however, to be eminently reasonable:
The required evidence must be concrete; based on observational data, not
intuitive arguments.
The required evidence must be specific; general criteria are vulnerable to
ad hoc amendations.
The required evidence must involve countries for which the specifics of
industry are readily available.
The required evidence must be conclusive; none of this "it isn't a monopoly
because some day the free market is going to bring it down."
The required evidence should involve an industrialized economy. An example
using the barter system of the Dyaks of Borneo is irrelevant and
unacceptable.
Message: 68719
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John/dolphins
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 07:36:51
There are very few animals out there that are 'nice' to the human race -
dogs, cats, and dolphins to name a very few - most are like cows, sheep,
elephants, etc, that live in their own little world and we can tame them
only to a degree. Dolphins are rare - they can not be tamed, yet they are
friendly to man - not afraid of them and yes, they have saved lives and are
super intelligent compared to other animals - even perhaps dogs. This may
not be the main reason though - it is the waste of anything. We NEED at this
time an 'environmental push'. Mankind has become overly cruel in his quest
for material gain. If something is in his way, he steps on it and goes about
his business - taking the easy way so he'll save money. He not only crushes
the animals, he will not stop at crushing other human's either.
We are the only animal on this earth that can do something about our
envirionment - the animals cannot. They are born, bred, eat and die -
usually staying in one spot. We can control having children for example so
that this earth is not so populated that we have to cut down the rain
forests to provide jobs. The animals cannot do this. I personally feel that
the squirrels are very important, so are the dolphins. We can stop building
so many houses - staying in one spot ourselves instead of constantly moving.
This would save on materials and the cutting of trees - which, anyway, would
be better used for fuel than the mass producing of houses.
I am no true envirionmentalist - but I am an animal lover. To me dolphins
are one of the great animals of this earth. I'd like to see them protected
because they are special. This post may not answer your question, but it's
the way I feel. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68720
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley on owl
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 07:49:58
Question: Why does something have to "contribute' to the economy? All the
welfare recipients do not contribute - shall we eradicate them as well?
The timber companies can plan for the future all they want but the fact is
it takes years to replace a forest regardless of re-seeding or planning.
You have a valid point Pauley, but the fact is we must start thinking of
other ways to build housing, furniture etc. because our forests will only
spread so far. Ditto gasoline/oil. It's all going to be gone someday.
The wildlife is part of this world. Why must mankind constantly sacrifice it
on the alter of economy?? We live and work for the most part in big cities -
living a life of stress - it builds up, we need to get away to someplace
like a forest full of churping birds and wildlife for awhile. Yet we are
constantly distroying it and we NEED it! Maybe the spotted owl isn't all
that important, but what's next? Cats are a real problem - they are too
prolific - are we to do away with them someday? Where do we draw the line at
what to eradicate?
I don't believe in bleeding heart envirionmentalist any more than I believe
in bleeding heart anything - but we need someone to intervene and I'd
reather see them win at this point. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68721
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff B.
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 07:51:40
Thanks for that envirionmental post to Pauley. You said it well.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68722
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff/centrifugal
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 08:10:47
"nor does a pulling indicate that a force of opposite direction exists;"
Really !?? then to what do attribute this "pulling" ? metaphysics ? As far
as cutting the string, the original force is removed and its equal and
opposite component is removed also. gravity has nothing to do with the
situation. I can see that you are going to force me into the mathematics in
which all the force vectors are shown, but I'll have to dust off some of my
old physics. If I remember correctly, the force component in the direction
of the radius of the circle can be computed from the change in the velocity
vector due to the change in direction. Clearly, the velocity normal to the
curve stays constant, but it's components with respect to the x and y axis
do change, and any time you have a change in velocity, you have an
acceleration, and when you have an acceleration you have a force.
Message: 68723
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: paul/timber
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 08:12:47
Yes, all one has to do when cutting down 2000 year-old redwoods is plant
some more redwoods and wait 2000 years for another crop of 2000 year-old
redwoods.
Message: 68724
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/trees
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 12:40:43
I forgot that they are chopping down those Redwoods. I've read of all the
reasons of why they are doing it, but still don't understand!!! Some are
older than when Christ walked the earth. It's so sad. -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68725
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Last
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 13:09:34
Re: "Some are older than when Christ walked the earth".
I would go so far as to say that *all* redwoods are older than they were
at some time in the past.
====== Pascal =(O,O)= Hoot! MacProgrammer ======
Message: 68726
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: In search of
Subject: Limits
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 13:17:53
There are times when we use words in a way that seems meaningless when you
try to think about them logically. It seems meaningless to have an infinite
limit, for example. Well, in the past, it seemed meaningless to call "one"
a number! Later, mathematicians called one a number, but not zero, and they
didn't think about negative numbers at all. Nowadays, though, we have no
trouble calling one, zero, or i "numbers".
The same holds with limits. It is more convenient to say that the limit
as x approaches zero of (1/x) is infinity than to say that it has no limit.
It's shorthand. You ask, "What's the limit?" I answer, "Infinity." I
could answer, "It has no limit," but that would take more words, and it is
reasonable to define what you mean by that particular answer than it would
be to deny the question.
It's as if you asked someone how many children he had, and he answered,
"There is no answer to that question," because he had one child, or zero,
and doesn't feel comfortable calling "zero" and "one" numbers.
====== Pascal =(O,O)= Hoot! MacProgrammer ======
Message: 68727
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/redwoods
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 13:20:43
Yes, some things are more important than the short-term benefit. Such as
learning to live without middle-eastern oil. When we get done with this
crisis, the US HAS to plan to be free of the despotism of the middle east.
Message: 68728
Author: Red Dwarf
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: random thoughts
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 13:56:10
How do ever keep up with the messages?
If you replant a forest and 50 years later you have a stand of 500 year
old trees ok. Till then those trees need to be protected from the
depredation of development.
No economic system in existence now or ever before has worked. They always
need assistance(fine-tuning, price supports, marketplace circut-breakers,
price controls(remember nixon?) etc. ad nauseum) Nobody who 'belives' in one
system can ever understand another.
My cat scratches the #$"$# out of me! How can you compare a dolphin to a
cat?
Red
Message: 68729
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Answer!
Subject: Redwoods
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 14:53:17
According to The Judge, the walking redwoods who created the atmosphere of
pure oxygen in the first place will explode the first sodium chloride bomb.
(Book 7, story 1)
Message: 68730
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/force
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 19:29:23
I am going to have to give this some consideration. I'll get back to you.
(Oh, one thing I wanted to say is that muscular sensations are difficult to
"vectorize".)
Message: 68731
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Steve/limits
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 19:37:10
While the mathematical meaning of limit is vaguely suggested by its
linguistic usage, it is not defined thereby. The entire point of formally
defining mathematical concepts is to purge mathematics of all its
illogicalities, loose methods of reasoning, and premises of doubtful
validity. These problems plagued calculus until the second decade of the
nineteenth century, when Cauchy gave the first genuinely mathematical
definition of a limit, and it has never required modification. It is still
the formal definition of a limit.
The historical confusions which occured as the concept of number was
generalized, arose because the concept of number was not formally defined,
and hence ambiguous. You analogies are not apt, because the extension of
the concept of number from natural to whole to integer to rational to real
to complex to hypercomplex, involves formal generalizations of the concept
of number, not vague linguistic usages which are in formal violation of the
concept of number.
It is a very, very dangerous trend for mathematicians to misuse formally
defined concepts out of linguistic sloth. It is a contradiction in terms to
refer to something that increases (or decreases) without bound as a limit,
and the only thing which gives mathematics validity is logical consistency.
Message: 68732
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Last
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 21:06:45
But you see, you have to realize that the mathematical definition of
"infinity" in some contexts is "increases without limit".
====== Pascal =(O,O)= Hoot! MacProgrammer ======
Message: 68733
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/force
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 21:48:24
Roger, I have done a little more reading on the subject of centrifugal and
centripetal force, and have discovered that in a sense, we are both right;
in another sense, we are both wrong. Let me explain.
You are right in everything you say regarding the existence of an equal and
opposite force, in both the example of an object orbiting the Earth and in
the example of a twirling rock on the end of a string. But I am right when
I say that centrifugal force is fictitious. That is not to say that the
third law is invalidated; it isn't. As you pointed out, the force of
gravitational attraction exerted by the Earth upon an orbiting satellite
is coincident with a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction
exerted by the satellite upon the Earth. The acceleration of the Earth,
due to its greater relative mass (assuming that the satellite is artificial)
is unnoticeable. The gravitational force exerted by the Earth upon the
satellite, is the centripetal force. HOWEVER, the reciprocal gravitational
force is NOT defined as centrifugal force.
Newton's second law, F=ma, can be interpreted in a different way by writing
it in the form, F + (-ma) = 0, and treating the term (-ma) as if it were
a force. In this form, (-ma) is called an inertia-force, to distinguish it
from such real forces as gravity or the force exerted by one body on another
through direct contact. The inertia-force concept makes it possible to
reduce a problem in dynamics to a problem in statics by writing the second
law in the form SIGMA F = 0, and including the inertia-forces in the
summation. The term (-ma), sometimes called a reversed effective force, is
a fictitious force.
In the case of the Earth and the satellite, the satellite has only one
real force acting on it, namely, Earth's gravitational pull, the centripetal
force directed toward the center of the curvature of the satellite's path,
toward the center of the Earth. The corresponding inertia-force, equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction, is called the centrifugal force. The
reason for the confusion is the fact that there is a real force, namely, the
reciprocal gravitational force, equal to the centrifugal force in both
magnitude and direction, but acting upon the Earth; the centrifugal force,
however, is not acting upon the Earth, but upon the satellite! Using the
inertia-force viewpoint, the satellite is in equilibrium (zero acceleration)
under the influence of the (real) centripetal force and the (fictitious)
outward centrifugal force. This allows the equations of equilibrium to be
applied, and is thus a mere mathematical convenience.
Message: 68735
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Steve/limits
Date: 08/17/90 Time: 21:57:28
That's as may be. However, L, in the definition of a limit, is a number, not
a variable increasing without bound, and so your use of the term still
violates the definition of limit. I have seen your use of limit before, and
the authors at least had the good sense to parenthetically describe it as an
"improper limit". I have also seen people use the terms "right hand limit"
and "left hand limit" to allow the use of the term limit to be applied to
other types of functions which have no limit, and again, I cannot emphasize
how foolish and dangerous this is, no matter how convenient it is for the
lazy mathematician who would rather save two or three words than accurately
describe something. It is not at all convenient when it comes time to
analyze the logical consistency of an affected area of mathematics, as any
student or critic will attest.
Message: 68736
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Answer!
Subject: Jeff
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 05:50:47
You should take some time touring the timber contry of the Northwest, Jeff.
See what the timber companies are doing to preserve both the forests and
their own future. Your statement, that they are interested only in
short-term profit, is incorrect. On the contrary, they are very meticulous
in the methods they use to reforest those areas that they harvest. Trees to
them are the same as annual crops are to the farmer. It just takes longer to
grow a crop, so they are very careful as to where and how much they harvest
each year, in order to assure them of continuous production.
This line of discussion, however, begs the original question. WHat is the
more important, an owl that is not really on the verge of extinction, or
20-30,000 families that could surely wind up on the public dole if their
only means of livelihood is curtailed or removed?
Message: 68737
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/owls
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 06:10:34
Annie, you don't seem to understand the situation in the northwest.
The fact is that the spotted owl is not really in any danger of extinction.
The question is not the spotted owl at all, really. It is old growth
timber. THere are already more than 3 million acres of old growth that is
not being touched by the timber industry, and some environmentalists want
another 3 million set aside.
If this is done, not only will it not necessarily increase the range of the
spotted owl, but it will also put over 20,000 more families on those
non-productive welfare rolls. That translates in to thousands of kids who
will be inadequately housed, clothed, fed or educated, not because the head
of the household is too lazy to work, but because his only means of
livelihood has been taken away in order to give preference to a bird who
couldn't care less.
Something about those priorities sounds a little screwed up to me.
Message: 68738
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 06:13:08
The area in the spotted owl dispute is not redwood country. It is basically
pine and fir forests, which, when cut, are reseeded and replaced on a 50
year cycle, thus producing a new crop every 50 years perpetually.
Message: 68739
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Answer!
Subject: Pauley on trees
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 07:20:44
Again I see your point - but I ask again, where does it stop? We cannot
continue to rape everything to provide jobs for people.
I don't think the spotted owl is in danger either. But the redwoods are.
-=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68740
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: AIDS again
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 07:31:48
My son was telling me this yesterday - he has a friend in Havasu that went
in for an AIDS test - he is not gay, but has on occasion had relations with
women. He is not married - it was a routine test to make sure he was
alright. He did indeed prove negative - but the doctor told him he must come
back in every six months because he said AIDS can be dormant as long as ten
years! I find this to be a 'scare sham' of the first class and total
idiotcy. Also to use 'scare' to milk money out of people. It has made a
wreck out of the guy - just waiting for the next six months! Are we all
suppose to take AIDS tests every six months if we have relations with
anyone? I do not mean married people that do not stray - but single people.
This is crazy.
Re: Alzimers disease - now they are coming out with stories that it isn't a
disease at all but a natural aging process and that the medications they've
given the patients makes them worse, not better. One doctor even went so far
to state - "If we live long enough, we will ALL get Alzimers eventually"!
How many people have been scared out of the wits worried about getting that
disease? At the first sign of forgetfulness they'll start to be frightened
and all for naught! Doctor's - Bah Humbug! -=*) ANN (*=-
Message: 68741
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/timber
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 14:57:51
I cannot comment directly on the activities of any particular timber
company. I can say, as a matter of observable fact, that the forests are
dwindling, that waste is rampant in the industry, and that corporate
executives are notoriously motivated by short-term profit.
Message: 68742
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Alzheimer's
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 15:13:26
There have also been stories saying that it is a disease, and that aging
does not cause, nor is it by any means invariably connected with,
Alzheimer's (hope I'm spelling that correctly).
What you should bear in mind is that all kinds of studies about all kinds of
things are constantly being conducted, and frequently they reach quite
different conclusions. The usual process involves publishing in a
scientific journal, allowing peer review, allowing other researchers to try
and consistently reproduce the results, and after reviewing all of this,
making some sort of definite assertion. Instead, we often find that
virtually the minute a single study is completed, the story is given to the
press; this is particularly the case when the results are sensationalistic.
The press, being unable to distinguish between a study, and the consensus of
the scientific community, makes it appear that the results are conclusive.
We then have stories about cold fusion energy, finding the "alcoholism
gene," and the inevitability of Alzheimer's.
Personally, I have known a number of old people with quite sharp minds.
Frequently, the loss of memory associated with old age is the result of
depression, overmedication, and other factors. I don't see how anyone could
make a general statement such as "we'd all get Alzheimer's if we lived long
enough," however that is defined, because we don't all live "long enough,"
and so the statement can never be tested.
Message: 68743
Author: $ Mad Max
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Alzheimers
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 16:05:07
Dear ann, I work with old people, I take care of them, and live with them,
believe me when I say that an alzheimers patient is by far different from a
normaly aged person. Alzheimers patients tend to be violent, confussed,
paranoid, ect.. A person that just ages normally does not have behavioral
problems like that.Yes they can be forget full and slow but they never get
violent like some of the alzheimers patients I've taken care of. Next to
that my aunt in tempe has alzheimers, and she went from a VERY loving and
kind persona to being EXTREMLY disturbed and violent. She constantly thinks
someone is trying to do her harm, including the man she's been married to
for almost 50 years. Normal aging is difficult enough for most families, but
the stress from dealing with a relative with alzheimers is enormous, to say
the least. It is best to keep a alzheimers patient in a steril enviroment,
by that I mean a room with nothing in it, it keeps them the comest. It
sounds cruel, but sofar it's the only proven method to manage a patient like
that without having to over medicate them. The medicinces for such patients
do not claim to cure them, but meerly keep them calm. It's an extremly
difficult job, believe me after one year of doing this, I swore myself NEVER
to do it again, because of the stress. Alzheimers patients usually end up in
a carehome like the one I work and live in because families just can't deal
with it any more. And I do say we are one of the better homes in the valley
and only take patients that are not finacialy well off, because they have
nowere else to go, because nobody wants them, but we try to give them loving
care. Very hard, very hard and I'll never be able to do it again.
Well that was my two cents worth. The Mad Max
Message: 68744
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: fake forces
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 16:26:37
The force "caused by" ma is just as real as a gravititational force,
I am afraid. It just boils down to semantics. what is a "real" force ?
Message: 68745
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: centrifigja;l
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 16:30:16
The force balances only along the radius of the circle or ellipse.
They definitely do not balance in the x, y coordinate system. Indeed,
the movement of a satellite in an x,y coordinate system with the earth
at 0,0 shows that a net force is exerted in the x direction and in the
y direction, otherwise, the satellite would move in a straight line !!!
Message: 68746
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Paul/owl
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 16:31:50
I say save the spotted owl. The preservation of species is more important
than the convenience of a few thousand lumberjacks who can find wood to mine
somewhere else.
Message: 68747
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: War!
Subject: ann/AIDS
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 16:34:23
The kid ought to stop having sex with women he suspects may have AIDS.
If he is in a high-risk category, he should continue to go back to
the doctor.
I'd like to respond to your second point, but I can't remember what it was.
Message: 68748
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: max/carehome
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 16:36:23
Where do you work ? My father-in-law has been in
Message: 68749
Author: $ Dean Hathaway
Category: Politics
Subject: Jeff B./oppression
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 18:47:11
I disagree. I think that anything which can rightly be called oppression,
including the catagories you mentioned, involves fraud (intentional
perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of
value or to surrender a legal right), or coercion (to restrain or dominate
by nullifying individual will, to compel an act or choice by force or
threat). If it is none of these then it is not an act of oppression, at
least not in any sense which should become the basis for public policy.
Your criteria for testing the validity of a free market system require
that a contemporary example be found which is highly developed, yet has
escaped the influence of the anti-market forces which have dominated every
major national economy I can think of. This choice of a testing method may
mean that nothing can be proven to you in this area, but I don't think that
would prove anything beyond a specific case as it relates to you.
I am interested in doing some research from the anti-market side, and
will begin doing that soon. You are correct in that we will probably find
that any existing economy has problems, and that I will point to the
anti-market forces in that economy as the cause, while you will say that
that can not be proven without a pure market example for contrast.
Did you once refer to a book called "The Jungle"? I seem to remember that
name in connection with you. Is that something I should read, and if so
where can it be found? Thanks.
See You Later,
Dean H.
Message: 68750
Author: Yo Homeboys
Category: For sale
Subject: lead guitar
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 19:19:52
1 lead guitar for sale!
HONDO DELUXE SERIES(looks like fender strat.)
make offer...or trade for good acuistic guitar
only serious inquires.*thanks*
Message: 68751
Author: Yo Homeboys
Category: For sale
Subject: amiga 2000
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 19:21:27
wanted badly! AMIGA 2000 have many things for possible trade!
Message: 68752
Author: Yo Homeboys
Category: For sale
Subject: '66 jeep
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 19:37:55
FOR SALE 1966 JEEP WAGONEER!
factory 327 willys engine (250 horse power)
turbo 400 trans, DANA:transfercase,dana 44 front and rear axles,dana
steering box,dana etc. the list goes on...
rancho suspension( also custom 4" dropped pitman arm,by fly-n-hi)
31" bf goodrich tires on chrome spoke rims
3 core heavy duty radiator,holley carb,eddlebrock aircleaner
air horns,hi perf. guages(oil pressure,vac,temp)
this 4 by 4 will climb anything!
serious inquires only,thanks
p.s i forgot to say...its got a straight body,good white paint,no rust!
been maintained,currently in process of rebuilding driveshaft but should be
finished soon...come drive and i'm sure you will buy it! good for
hunting,family trips,grocery shopping etc. $3000 or trade for AMC EAGLE
will listen to any reasonable offer
Message: 68753
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Yo Homeboys
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 21:20:58
Why do you want an Amiga 2000 ?
Why not a 3000 ?
Message: 68754
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: iraqophobia
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 21:31:02
Here we are on the brink of the biggest war since WWII, (or at least
Korea) the reservists getting called up. hundreds of thousands of americans
in the god-forsaken saudi-arabian desert where the temps are reported to
be 100-110 during the day (gad !), and Saddam Hussein has allegedly made
US citizens and other nationals into hostages by purportedly putting them
in key military and industrial installations. And not one word on this
board about it. The question I pose to you all (at least those of you
who have decided to read this Iraqophobia Drivel) is:
Should Bush ignore the fact that Americans and other nationals may be
hostages and bomb the military targets anyway ?
Should Bush strike first or wait for Saddam to make the first move ?
Is Bush trying to egg Saddam into moving first with his insults ?
Does Bush have HIS head on straight ? Is Bush emotionally involved ?
Does Bush realize that he is represents the American people and that the
American people may or may not have a "thing" about Saddam ?
Do YOU all realize that 3 months ago Hussein was a good guy and that
Assad of Syria and the Iranians were the bad guys ? And finally,
what are the Russians up to in this ?
Message: 68755
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/asubx
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 21:50:02
Given motion in the x,y plane with the motion described as a circle
with the origin as the center of the circle we have the equation of
the circle as:
X^2 + y^2 = R^2
Assuming the velocity of an object to be a constant on the circumference
of the circle we have :
vsubx^2 + vsuby^2 = V^2 (given)
differentiation the equation 1 with respect to time we get the equation
for velocity around the circle as:
2xvsubx + 2yvsuby = 0 (the derivative of a constant is always zero)
2 can be removed, so we get xvsubx + yvsuby = 0
differentiation with respect to time once more we get:
vsubx^2 + xasuby + vsuby^2 + yasuby = 0
But we know that vsubx^2 + vsuby^2 = V^2 so we get:
V^2 = -xasubx - yasuby
Now consider y=0. When y=0 we have V^2/x = -asubx. If you look on the
curve for y=0, you see that the force component is negative an entirely
along the x axis. The same for x=0, except component is on y axis. This
force is supplied by gravity for objects in orbit. notice, NO positive
Message: 68756
Author: $ Roger Mann
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: jeff/asubx(cont'd)
Date: 08/18/90 Time: 21:52:49
x component. Therefore there is no component of force that opposes
gravity. This makes sense, since the object moves in the -x direction
from the point that y=0, x=R.
Centrifugal force then is not only not real, it doesn't exist !
Message: 68760
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Roger/Iraq
Date: 08/19/90 Time: 01:18:30
1) No nation can allow itself to be held hostage. The best that we can do
is to promise immediate and severe retribution in the event of harm to
hostages. Of course, we must back this up. We would probably not be
believed until we had established a record.
2) It is not necessary to strike at Hussein. It is only necessary to wage
a war of attrition. We should take whatever steps necessary to insure that
this is done.
3) Who knows.
4) Bush has so far done well. It is not necessary that the American
people, or for that matter, for George Bush, to have a thing about Saddam.
It is a matter of economic critical interests, and not a personal war.
5) It's a question of pragmatism. The Russians are marginally on our side.
Message: 68761
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Roger/forces
Date: 08/19/90 Time: 01:24:20
I will need to decipher your messages offline. I had posted a couple of
replies to some early responses of yours, but have since zapped them, since
in 68756 you seemed to have had a change of opinion (i.e., "centrifugal
force then is not only not real, it doesn't exist!").
That is my assertion. But remember, it may be quite convenient,
mathematically, to consider an object in stable orbit as under the influence
of two equal and opposite forces at every point of its orbit, and therefore
under no net force, so that the equations of statics rather than the
equations of dynamics may be applied, as if to a system in equilibrium.
Message: 68762
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/68749
Date: 08/19/90 Time: 01:25:11
If fraud is "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to
part with something of legal value," and coercion is "to restrain or
dominate by nullifying individual will, to compel an act or choice by force
or threat," and if this should be the basis for public policy, it is clear
that public policy would necessarily be exponentially more pervasive and
invasive than at present, since fraud and coercion by these definitions
pervade all of business, and indeed, almost every transaction between human
beings, whether personal or business.
One need not sell gold painted bricks or threaten someone at gunpoint in
order to commit fraud or coercion; these are but the grossest examples. The
most insidious, and by far the most common forms of fraud and coercion, are
seldom recognised as such.
The criteria for testing the validity of your free-market concepts I leave
to you; I merely insist on certain experimental controls which will allow
the test to be conducted with objectivity. I only ask you to give the
criteria by which means your hypothesis might be refuted, on the sole basis
of observational data. That is, after all, what distinguishes an emprical
proposition from an analytical or metaphysical one. Since your assertions
can be denied without contradiction, they are not analytical, and since you
cannot provide a means for empirical disproval, I must assume that they are
metaphysical dogma. If a proposition refers to the world,it must be possible
to prove or disprove it solely on the basis of empirical evidence. (CONT)
Message: 68763
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Dean/The Jungle
Date: 08/19/90 Time: 01:32:16
The Jungle is an interesting book because it examines a number of historical
conditions, by and large, accurately. It was in part an expose of the
meat-packing industry, and subsequent Congressional investigation not only
resulted in important legislation, but confirmed the details of Sinclair's
expose with a single exceptional detail (involving an accidental human death
and the subsequent, er, rather morbid use it was put to).
However, the book is rather melodramatic, or certainly unrelievedly
negative, and the while the author's historical details may be essentially
correct, his socialistic conclusions are of dubious validity.
It's by Upton Sinclair. It can be found at any library, though I would be
glad to loan you my copy (paperback). He also wrote a number of other books
involving various other trusts, none of which are as well known or were as
directly influential.
VOICE