OT: Tax breaks to Oracle debated

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

The Phila Inqr reported that some are criticizing a deal to give
Oracle tax breaks so that it will locate a facility in Pennsylvania.

article at:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121023_Tax_incentive_to_lure_software_maker_Oracle_to_Pennsylvania_awaits_Gov__Corbett_s_signature.html

[Dave Garland]

Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
(in the form of tax breaks) from communities.

Speaking from a location that has gotten suckered into these deals
before, I say it's important to have explicit and firm commitments as
to how many jobs will be created, how long they will last, the minimum
that they will pay, and who they will hire, firmly in advance. And
penalties that will have senior standing in case of default,
bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but a
fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.
Even then, it's tricky.

[Rod Speed]

Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote

> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote

>> The Phila Inqr reported that some are criticizing a deal to give
>> Oracle tax breaks so that it will locate a facility in Pennsylvania.

>> article at:
>> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121023_Tax_incentive_to_lure_software_maker_Oracle_to_Pennsylvania_awaits_Gov__Corbett_s_signature.html

> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money (in
> the form of tax breaks) from communities.

Hardly surprising that they look for the best offers available tho.

> Speaking from a location that has gotten suckered into these deals before,
> I say it's important to have explicit and firm commitments as to how many
> jobs will be created, how long they will last, the minimum that they will
> pay, and who they will hire, firmly in advance.

Just not feasible for so many operations.

There are fuck all operations that can ever predict that sort of thing.

> And penalties that will have senior standing in case of default,
> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company.

Not even possible legally.

> These days, nobody but a fool would trust corporate entities to actually
> deliver what the promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise
> beforehand.

And while ever some place isnt stupid enough to try that, it won't work.

> Even then, it's tricky.

Impossible, actually.

[Roger Blake]

On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.

Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
under threat of violence.

> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but a
> fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.

You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust governmental entities
to actually deliver what they promise..."

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> writes:
> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.
>
> Speaking from a location that has gotten suckered into these deals
> before, I say it's important to have explicit and firm commitments as
> to how many jobs will be created, how long they will last, the minimum
> that they will pay, and who they will hire, firmly in advance. And
> penalties that will have senior standing in case of default,
> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but a
> fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise
> beforehand. Even then, it's tricky.

also con'ing municipalities to issuing bonds for various parts
of the endeavors

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[Dan Espen]

Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> writes:

> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
>> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.
>
> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
> less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
> their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
> under threat of violence.

All in how you look at it.

The "job creators" get welfare, the people working the jobs pay taxes
so the ruling class can get their tax breaks.

This kind of crap just keeps going on and on.

A real lack of maturity in the population in my opinion.

--
Dan Espen

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 24, 7:30 am, Roger Blake <rogbl...@iname.invalid> wrote:

> Quite the opposite, government
> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
> under threat of violence.

Plow your streets.

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <2012102...@news.eternal-september.org>,

rogb...@iname.invalid (Roger Blake) writes:

> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but
>> a fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
>> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.
>
> You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust governmental entities
> to actually deliver what they promise..."

Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between the two groups,
those two statements are becoming synonymous. The ones with the body
parts in a vise are those of us who the chairman of BP, in a moment
of inadvertent candour, referred to as "the small people".

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[Patrick Scheible]

Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> writes:

> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
>> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.
>
> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
> less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
> their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
> under threat of violence.

Government is people working together to accomplish common aims. Taxes
are what every economic entity pays to keep their share of society
running, whether they're a person or a corporation. Exempting some
corporations from paying their share of taxes should be completely
unacceptable, and it's a sign of the decay of civilization that some of
them are allowed to get away with it.

-- Patrick

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:28:54 -0700
Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:

> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims. Taxes
> are what every economic entity pays to keep their share of society
> running, whether they're a person or a corporation. Exempting some
> corporations from paying their share of taxes should be completely
> unacceptable, and it's a sign of the decay of civilization that some of
> them are allowed to get away with it.

I think you'll find it's been going on for about as long as
taxation.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Dan Espen]

Amen.

Government giveaways are much more massive than most people realize.
The overwhelming majority goes to businesses, the most notable the MIC,
or MICC if you prefer.

Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
and missile systems. Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
foreign militaries. Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.

That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
get into the act breeding new flowers.

It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.

--
Dan Espen

[Andrew Swallow]

On 24/10/2012 17:04, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
{snip}

>
> Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between the two groups,
> those two statements are becoming synonymous. The ones with the body
> parts in a vise are those of us who the chairman of BP, in a moment
> of inadvertent candour, referred to as "the small people".
>

The problems in the Gulf of Mexico and Russia suggest that the wrong
people are in the boardroom of BP.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 24/10/2012 16:45, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:28:54 -0700
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims. Taxes
>> are what every economic entity pays to keep their share of society
>> running, whether they're a person or a corporation. Exempting some
>> corporations from paying their share of taxes should be completely
>> unacceptable, and it's a sign of the decay of civilization that some of
>> them are allowed to get away with it.
>
> I think you'll find it's been going on for about as long as
> taxation.
>

One of the advantages of laissez-faire is no special tax brakes.

Andrew Swallow

[Rod Speed]

Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote

> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote

>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to
>> extorting money (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.

> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein
> they pledge to loot less from you in exchange for
> employing some of the peasantry under their rule

Nothing like what is being discussed.

> is hardly "extorting money."

What is being discussed is.

> Quite the opposite,

Even sillier.

> government is the nonproductive entity extorting money
> from the producers of wealth under threat of violence.

Usual utterly mindless ultra right line.

>> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody
>> but a fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
>> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.

> You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust
> governmental entities to actually deliver what they promise..."

You can rely on them taxing you the way the tax law requires them to do if
you cant pay hordes of lawyers to avoid the tax the law requires you to pay.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote
>> Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote

>>> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote

>>>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to
>>>> extorting money (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.

>>> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
>>> less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
>>> their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
>>> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
>>> under threat of violence.

>> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims.
>> Taxes are what every economic entity pays to keep their share of society
>> running, whether they're a person or a corporation. Exempting some
>> corporations from paying their share of taxes should be completely
>> unacceptable, and it's a sign of the decay of civilization that some of
>> them are allowed to get away with it.

> Amen.

Trouble is that 'their fair share' is just waffle that has never
been possible to turn into something bulletproof legislation
wise, particularly when there is such a wide diversity between
different types of corps, let alone over all businesses.

> Government giveaways are much more massive than most
> people realize. The overwhelming majority goes to businesses,

That's mindlessly silly when you include real welfare
to individuals in any modern first world economy.

> the most notable the MIC, or MICC if you prefer.

That's not corporate welfare.

> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear
> Carriers, submarines, and missile systems.

That's silly too compared with highway infrastructure etc.

> Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to foreign militaries.

That's doesn't happen either.

> Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.

> That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower
> gardens on the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people
> to work and everyone gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands
> of miles of roses, dahlias, daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The
> views will be spectacular, almost anyone can do the work
> and it's good for all of us.

Better highway infrastructure in the big citys like the Bostonian
Big Dig is MUCH more productive use of the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

> Even scientists can get into the act breeding new flowers.

I'd rather they work out how to dig more effectively thanks.

> It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into
> plowed ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.

Much better ways to achieve that result.

[Dan Espen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>> the most notable the MIC, or MICC if you prefer.
>
> That's not corporate welfare.

Mindlessly silly.

Yeah, I know, everyone can see I'm lying.

I can't figure out why you post here if everyone is wrong about
everything.

--
Dan Espen

[Charles Richmond]

"Dave Garland" <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:k67u2r$b0m$1...@dont-email.me...

The only govenment deal I would support for Oracle... is to give Larry
Ellison "three hots and a cot" for about 20 years. :-)

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
> Government giveaways are much more massive than most people realize.
> The overwhelming majority goes to businesses, the most notable the MIC,
> or MICC if you prefer.
>
> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
> and missile systems. Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
> foreign militaries. Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.
>
> That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
> the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
> gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
> daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
> anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
> get into the act breeding new flowers.
>
> It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
> ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.

"The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War"
http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com/p/domestic-roots-of-perpetual-war.html

also mentions version of above is Charpter 1 in Pentagon Labyrinth
(on dod precurement and financials):
http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com/p/pentagon-labyrinth.html

Annual Boyd conference at Quantico Marine University week before last
... URLs from around the web & past posts mentioning Boyd
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subboyd.html

note that CBO reports that tax revenues were cut by $6T last decade and
spending increased by $6T for $12T budget gap (compared to baseline
which had all federal debt retired by 2010) ... much of it happening
after congress let fiscal responsibility act expire in 2002 (required
that spending & revenue match). Much of the reduction in revenues and
spending has continued into this decade.

$2T of the $6T spending increase last decade went to DOD, $1T was
appropriations for the wars ... analysis doesn't show where the other
extra trillion has gone. Recent dire projections about looming DOD
spending cuts actually involves cutting DOD back to 2007 spending
levels.

I've periodically pontificated that Boyd was largely behind F20
tigershark ... as meeting many of his original design goals for the F16
... before it too started to bloat. They figured that US military
wouldn't buy ... but had designs on exports. It turned out that the F16
lobby moved in and got congress to appropriate foreign aid to all
potential F20 buyers that was earmarked for F16 purchases (i.e. the
foreign countries could only use the aid for buying F16s). While the F20
was significantly better for their purposes ... they were then faced
with effectively getting F16s for free or having to use their own money
for F20s.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 24, 12:16 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
> and missile systems.  Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
> foreign militaries.  Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.

The big spending by those entities contributed to creating the
information technology industry amd its advances.

In the 1950s, the big demand for real computers was by the military
and defense contractors, especially in aeronautics and nuclear
energy. The designers of jet planes, missles, and nuclear weapons
needed heavy computation horsepower to support their work and were
willing to pay for it.

IBM and others learned a great deal of programming and technology from
doing the SAGE project, a missile defense system.

> That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
> the interstates.  It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
> gets the benefit.  Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
> daffodils, portulaca, daisies.  The views will be spectacular, almost
> anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us.  Even scientists can
> get into the act breeding new flowers.

Master builder Robert Moses almost always added parks along his
highways and bridges for the reasons you mention (also, using work
relief monies helped pay for the projects). Of course, how attractive
a park is next to a roaring six-lane highway is tough to say. Moses
also built many miles of parkways, though it's questionable how many
motorists used them to enjoy a park-like experience as opposed to the
road merely being an expressway between two points. Moses lost a
lawsuit to keep speed limits low on his parkways.

[Charles Richmond]

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:51d8a0a1-b58a-410d...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

On Oct 24, 12:16 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
>> and missile systems. Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
>> foreign militaries. Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.>
>
>The big spending by those entities contributed to creating the
>information technology industry amd its advances.
>
>In the 1950s, the big demand for real computers was by the military
>and defense contractors, especially in aeronautics and nuclear
>energy. The designers of jet planes, missles, and nuclear weapons
>needed heavy computation horsepower to support their work and were
>willing to pay for it.
>
>IBM and others learned a great deal of programming and technology from
>doing the SAGE project, a missile defense system.

And where would the oroginal Star Trek get their transporter console... if
it weren't for SAGE??? :-)

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Dan Espen]

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:

> It turned out that the F16
> lobby moved in and got congress to appropriate foreign aid to all
> potential F20 buyers that was earmarked for F16 purchases (i.e. the
> foreign countries could only use the aid for buying F16s). While the F20
> was significantly better for their purposes ... they were then faced
> with effectively getting F16s for free or having to use their own money
> for F20s.

Insane. How does it make sense for the US government to give money to
foreign governments to buy weapons? I don't care if they are US
weapons.

There are much better things the US government can subsidize, and it
won't lead to some foreign government terrorizing their citizens and
neighbors.

Of course we build roads and bridges first, but you can't have too many
flowers. Red Trumpet vines attract hummingbirds. You can't have too
many hummingbirds either.

Wikipedia:

Much of the F-20's development was carried out under a U.S. Department
of Defense (DoD) project called "FX". FX sought to develop fighters
that would be capable in combat with the latest Soviet aircraft but,
by excluding sensitive front-line technlogies used by the USAF, the FX
could be safely sold to foreign nations without the risking
significant technological advancements falling into Soviet hands. FX
was a product of the Carter administration's military export
policies. Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international
market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election
meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the
F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design. The development program was
eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and
a fourth partially completed.

--
Dan Espen

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <hs6dnbkAr75viBXN...@bt.com>,

<sarcasm>
Problems? What problems? BP is making lots of money.
That doesn't sound like a problem to me.
</sarcasm>

[Patrick Scheible]

Maybe in other groups everyone ignores him.

-- Patrick

[Dan Espen]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

> On Oct 24, 12:16 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
>> and missile systems.  Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
>> foreign militaries.  Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.
>
> The big spending by those entities contributed to creating the
> information technology industry amd its advances.
>
> In the 1950s, the big demand for real computers was by the military
> and defense contractors, especially in aeronautics and nuclear
> energy. The designers of jet planes, missles, and nuclear weapons
> needed heavy computation horsepower to support their work and were
> willing to pay for it.
>
> IBM and others learned a great deal of programming and technology from
> doing the SAGE project, a missile defense system.

IBM, programming?

The type of programming they did on the space program has little
commercial application.

Meanwhile, IBM couldn't put together an OS for their own PC.

>> That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
>> the interstates.  It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
>> gets the benefit.  Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
>> daffodils, portulaca, daisies.  The views will be spectacular, almost
>> anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us.  Even scientists can
>> get into the act breeding new flowers.
>
> Master builder Robert Moses almost always added parks along his
> highways and bridges for the reasons you mention (also, using work
> relief monies helped pay for the projects). Of course, how attractive
> a park is next to a roaring six-lane highway is tough to say. Moses
> also built many miles of parkways, though it's questionable how many
> motorists used them to enjoy a park-like experience as opposed to the
> road merely being an expressway between two points. Moses lost a
> lawsuit to keep speed limits low on his parkways.

Not nearly enough flowers.

They recently (15 years?) completed I-78 through our area. Most of the
parkway is surrounded by 20 foot noise abatement walls. They let any
old vine take over the wall. Silly, haven't they ever heard of Morning
Glories, Trumpet Vines, Wisteria, Pyracantha, Passion Flower Vines,
Sweet Pea?

This is work almost anyone can do. Even Downs Syndrome or
Schizophrenics with adequate supervision.

--
Dan Espen

[Dave Garland]

On 10/24/2012 6:30 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
>> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.
>
> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
> less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
> their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
> under threat of violence.
>
>> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but a
>> fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
>> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.
>
> You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust governmental entities
> to actually deliver what they promise..."
>

Oh, I don't trust them either. But at least government has the
theoretical goal of the common good, and (in the US) I have the
theoretical possibility of voting them out. Corporations have the de
jure goal of enriching their stockholders (and the de facto goal of
enriching their management), at the expense of anyone else, and they
don't give a fig for what I think. For the most part, in the absence
of aggressive unions and public-interest groups, government is the
only way to restrain the rapacious tendencies of corporations.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote

>> It turned out that the F16
>> lobby moved in and got congress to appropriate foreign aid to all
>> potential F20 buyers that was earmarked for F16 purchases (i.e. the
>> foreign countries could only use the aid for buying F16s). While the F20
>> was significantly better for their purposes ... they were then faced with
>> effectively getting F16s for free or having to use their own money
>> for F20s.

> Insane.

Its actually just another bare faced lie.

> How does it make sense for the US government to
> give money to foreign governments to buy weapons?

It doesn't.

> I don't care if they are US weapons.

> There are much better things the US government can subsidize,

Yes, and they do too, most obviously with the bailout of GM and the banks.

> and it won't lead to some foreign government
> terrorizing their citizens and neighbors.

Have fun listing even a single recent example of a govt doing that with
US weapons they have given that govt the money to buy them with.

> Of course we build roads and bridges first,

When there is a great swag of that stuff that needs doing right
now, its completely stupid to be wanking about flowers right now.

> but you can't have too many flowers. Red Trumpet vines attract
> hummingbirds. You can't have too many hummingbirds either.

We can and do have a great wealth of much better stuff to spend the
money on when there is one hell of a problem with a massive deficit.

> Wikipedia:

> Much of the F-20's development was carried out under a U.S. Department
> of Defense (DoD) project called "FX". FX sought to develop fighters
> that would be capable in combat with the latest Soviet aircraft but,
> by excluding sensitive front-line technlogies used by the USAF, the
> FX could be safely sold to foreign nations without the risking
> significant technological advancements falling into Soviet hands.
> FX was a product of the Carter administration's military export
> policies. Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international
> market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election
> meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the
> F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design. The development program was
> eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and
> a fourth partially completed.

So its completely stupid to claim that anyone was ever given the money to
buy it.

Just another bare faced lie in fact.

[rectifier]

"Patrick Scheible" <k...@zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:86y5iv3...@zipcon.net...

Completely trivial for even a fool like you to check that that�s a lie.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote

>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
>>> and missile systems. Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
>>> foreign militaries. Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.

>> The big spending by those entities contributed to creating
>> the information technology industry amd its advances.

>> In the 1950s, the big demand for real computers was by the military
>> and defense contractors, especially in aeronautics and nuclear
>> energy. The designers of jet planes, missles, and nuclear weapons
>> needed heavy computation horsepower to support their work and were
>> willing to pay for it.

>> IBM and others learned a great deal of programming and technology
>> from doing the SAGE project, a missile defense system.

> IBM, programming?

> The type of programming they did on the space
> program has little commercial application.

That’s drivel with the machine control that became so universal.

Let alone the development of ICs etc.

Sure, that would certainly have happened anyway,
but certainly happened earlier because of that stuff.

> Meanwhile, IBM couldn't put together an OS for their own PC.

Essentially because they decided they they
would get it out much quicker if they didn’t.

They were right on that and that particular machine
did end up completely dominating the industry for
quite a while even when it was cloned by everyone else.

>>> That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
>>> the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
>>> gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
>>> daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
>>> anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
>>> get into the act breeding new flowers.

>> Master builder Robert Moses almost always added parks along his
>> highways and bridges for the reasons you mention (also, using work
>> relief monies helped pay for the projects). Of course, how attractive
>> a park is next to a roaring six-lane highway is tough to say. Moses
>> also built many miles of parkways, though it's questionable how many
>> motorists used them to enjoy a park-like experience as opposed to the
>> road merely being an expressway between two points. Moses lost a
>> lawsuit to keep speed limits low on his parkways.

> Not nearly enough flowers.

Only for the rabid lefty wankers like you.

> They recently (15 years?) completed I-78 through our area. Most
> of the parkway is surrounded by 20 foot noise abatement walls.
> They let any old vine take over the wall. Silly, haven't they ever
> heard of Morning Glories, Trumpet Vines, Wisteria, Pyracantha,
> Passion Flower Vines, Sweet Pea?

I much prefer non flowers myself.

> This is work almost anyone can do.

That’s a lie with the worst of the cripples.

> Even Downs Syndrome or Schizophrenics
> with adequate supervision.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to not have the level of
supervision those would need in that sort of environment.

In spades with the public parks where there are lots of little kids around.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>> the most notable the MIC, or MICC if you prefer.

>> That's not corporate welfare.

> Mindlessly silly.

> Yeah, I know, everyone can see I'm lying.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you can't
lay a glove on even one of the comments you snipped.

> I can't figure out why you post here
> if everyone is wrong about everything.

Everyone isn't, fuckwit. I just don't bother with "me too's"

[Dan Espen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote
>
>>> It turned out that the F16
>>> lobby moved in and got congress to appropriate foreign aid to all
>>> potential F20 buyers that was earmarked for F16 purchases (i.e. the
>>> foreign countries could only use the aid for buying F16s). While the F20
>>> was significantly better for their purposes ... they were then faced with
>>> effectively getting F16s for free or having to use their own money
>>> for F20s.
>
>> Insane.
>
> Its actually just another bare faced lie.

You say potatoes, I say potato.

>> How does it make sense for the US government to
>> give money to foreign governments to buy weapons?
>
> It doesn't.

Uhh, you accidentally agreed with another poster here.

>> I don't care if they are US weapons.
>
>> There are much better things the US government can subsidize,
>
> Yes, and they do too, most obviously with the bailout of GM and the banks.

The amount of money handed to the MIC(C) dwarfs the bailouts.

>> and it won't lead to some foreign government
>> terrorizing their citizens and neighbors.
>
> Have fun listing even a single recent example of a govt doing that with
> US weapons they have given that govt the money to buy them with.

You think India likes Pakistan loading up on advanced US weapons?

>> Of course we build roads and bridges first,
>
> When there is a great swag of that stuff that needs doing right
> now, its completely stupid to be wanking about flowers right now.

Yeah, everyone is so stupid but you.

All over the world, we NEED to create full employment.

>> but you can't have too many flowers. Red Trumpet vines attract
>> hummingbirds. You can't have too many hummingbirds either.
>
> We can and do have a great wealth of much better stuff to spend the
> money on when there is one hell of a problem with a massive deficit.

When it comes to military spending, at least one party in this country
recognizes no limit.

I feel the same way about creating beauty. Sue me.

>> Wikipedia:
>
>> Much of the F-20's development was carried out under a U.S. Department
>> of Defense (DoD) project called "FX". FX sought to develop fighters
>> that would be capable in combat with the latest Soviet aircraft but,
>> by excluding sensitive front-line technlogies used by the USAF, the
>> FX could be safely sold to foreign nations without the risking
>> significant technological advancements falling into Soviet hands.
>> FX was a product of the Carter administration's military export
>> policies. Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international
>> market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election
>> meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the
>> F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design. The development program was
>> eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and
>> a fourth partially completed.
>
> So its completely stupid to claim that anyone was ever given the money
> to buy it.
>
> Just another bare faced lie in fact.

No one claimed that anyone was given money to buy F-20s.
We have a whole bunch of other stuff to sell though.

--
Dan Espen

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote

>>>> It turned out that the F16 lobby moved in and got congress
>>>> to appropriate foreign aid to all potential F20 buyers that was
>>>> earmarked for F16 purchases (i.e. the foreign countries could
>>>> only use the aid for buying F16s). While the F20 was significantly
>>>> better for their purposes ... they were then faced with effectively
>>>> getting F16s for free or having to use their own money for F20s.

>>> Insane.

>> Its actually just another bare faced lie.

> You say potatoes, I say potato.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> How does it make sense for the US government to
>>> give money to foreign governments to buy weapons?

>> It doesn't.

> Uhh, you accidentally agreed with another poster here.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> I don't care if they are US weapons.

>>> There are much better things the US government can subsidize,

>> Yes, and they do too, most obviously with the bailout of GM and the
>> banks.

> The amount of money handed to the MIC(C) dwarfs the bailouts.

Bullshit it does with the bank bailouts.

And that prevents another great depression or worse.

>>> and it won't lead to some foreign government
>>> terrorizing their citizens and neighbors.

>> Have fun listing even a single recent example of a govt doing that with
>> US weapons they have given that govt the money to buy them with.

> You think India likes Pakistan loading up on advanced US weapons?

Pakistan is NOT 'loading up on advanced US weapons'

Have fun listing even a single example of
an advanced US weapon they have got.

>>> Of course we build roads and bridges first,

>> When there is a great swag of that stuff that needs doing right
>> now, its completely stupid to be wanking about flowers right now.

> Yeah, everyone is so stupid but you.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> All over the world, we NEED to create full employment.

But its completely stupid to be paying hordes of the unemployed
to plant flowers when the bulk of the first world has IMMENSE
deficits. It makes a lot more sense to be employing them to do much
more useful stuff like highway and bridge infrastructure instead.

And yes, I would personally pull the plug on the bulk of the military
expenditure, and wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade Iraq
at all, and would have only done the initial fucking over of
Afghanistan from the air and would not have been stupid enough
to actually try occupying that place when those clowns can't even
manage to conduct an election, let alone have a viable govt.

But pulling the plug on the bulk of the military would only make
the unemployment problem MUCH worse in the US right now.

>>> but you can't have too many flowers. Red Trumpet vines attract
>>> hummingbirds. You can't have too many hummingbirds either.

>> We can and do have a great wealth of much better stuff to spend the
>> money on when there is one hell of a problem with a massive deficit.

> When it comes to military spending, at least one party in this country
> recognizes no limit.

Another mindless lie.

> I feel the same way about creating beauty. Sue me.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

>>> Wikipedia:

>>> Much of the F-20's development was carried out under a U.S. Department
>>> of Defense (DoD) project called "FX". FX sought to develop fighters
>>> that would be capable in combat with the latest Soviet aircraft but,
>>> by excluding sensitive front-line technlogies used by the USAF, the
>>> FX could be safely sold to foreign nations without the
>>> risking
>>> significant technological advancements falling into Soviet hands.
>>> FX was a product of the Carter administration's military
>>> export
>>> policies. Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international
>>> market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election
>>> meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the
>>> F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design. The development program was
>>> eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and
>>> a fourth partially completed.

>> So its completely stupid to claim that anyone
>> was ever given the money to buy it.

>> Just another bare faced lie in fact.

> No one claimed that anyone was given money to buy F-20s.

Another lie.

> We have a whole bunch of other stuff to sell though.

They weren't given the money so they could have them for free.

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
> Insane. How does it make sense for the US government to give money to
> foreign governments to buy weapons? I don't care if they are US
> weapons.
>
> There are much better things the US government can subsidize, and it
> won't lead to some foreign government terrorizing their citizens and
> neighbors.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#1 OT: Tax Breaks to Oracle debated

and part is subsidy for MICC that doesn't show up as part of the DOD
budget

also support corrupt governments as part of plundering the country
... online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

more recent detail
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-Man-ebook/dp/B001AFF266/

recent posts mentioning "War Is a Racket" &/or "Economic Hit Man":
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#25 You may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#57 Study Confirms The Government Produces The Buggiest Software
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#70 Disruptive Thinkers: Defining the Problem
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#70 The Army and Special Forces: The Fantasy Continues
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#81 GBP13tn: hoard hidden from taxman by global elite
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012k.html#45 If all of the American earned dollars hidden in off shore accounts were uncovered and taxed do you think we would be able to close the deficit gap?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#58 Singer Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#62 Singer Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#97 What a Caveman Can Teach You About Strategy
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012m.html#49 Cultural attitudes towards failure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#29 Jedi Knights
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#60 The IBM mainframe has been the backbone of most of the world's largest IT organizations for more than 48 years
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#83 Protected: R.I.P. Containment

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:16:32 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:

[snip]

>That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
>the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
>gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
>daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
>anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
>get into the act breeding new flowers.

Fuschias and gladioli? Can we get fuschias and gladioli?

>It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
>ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.

I see a possible flaw. Isn't a crash, by definition, slowing
down rather quickly?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Dan Espen]

Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> writes:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:16:32 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
>>the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
>>gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
>>daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
>>anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
>>get into the act breeding new flowers.
>
> Fuschias and gladioli? Can we get fuschias and gladioli?

The Fuschias I know aren't hardy (NJ).
Anywhere they grow, really nice:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Cultivated_Fucshias_at_BBC_Gardeners%27_World.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/94k8w39

My mom grew them in Suffolk LI, NY.
She shaded them and left them outdoors in the summer,
then put them in the greenhouse in the winter.
It just flowered like crazy.


Gladioli, love em.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Gladiolus_7-19-06.JPG

http://tinyurl.com/9m6b7ak

>>It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
>>ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.
>
> I see a possible flaw. Isn't a crash, by definition, slowing
> down rather quickly?

Instead of plowing into a wall or tree when leaving the road,
you drive across tilled soil and slow down because you sink in.

Probably not going to save millions of lives.

--
Dan Espen

[Dan Espen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:

> You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

...

> You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

...

> Bullshit it does with the bank bailouts.
>
> And that prevents another great depression or worse.

...

> Pakistan is NOT 'loading up on advanced US weapons'
>
> Have fun listing even a single example of
> an advanced US weapon they have got.

The Pakistanis fly F-16s and JF-17s.

> You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

...

> But its completely stupid to be paying hordes of the unemployed
> to plant flowers when the bulk of the first world has IMMENSE
> deficits. It makes a lot more sense to be employing them to do much
> more useful stuff like highway and bridge infrastructure instead.

Last time we did highway and bridge was the first stimulus.
That did not put enough people to work.
We only need so many roads and bridges, and I say build them now
because people need work.

But there are loads of people that don't have the strength, stamina,
or smarts to build roads. A big chunk of them can operate a spade,
poke a hole in the ground, stick a plant in it. Come back and weed
and water.

The manpower requirements are enormous, pretty much open ended.

What good is worrying about the deficit when you have people not
working? First get everyone working, then cut whatever you can,
including some military welfare,
then raise taxes slowly until the deficit starts going down.

> And yes, I would personally pull the plug on the bulk of the military
> expenditure, and wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade Iraq
> at all, and would have only done the initial fucking over of
> Afghanistan from the air and would not have been stupid enough
> to actually try occupying that place when those clowns can't even
> manage to conduct an election, let alone have a viable govt.

Agree with all that.

> But pulling the plug on the bulk of the military would only make
> the unemployment problem MUCH worse in the US right now.

See above plan.
What would you rather subsidize, selling military hardware,
or flowers?

> Another mindless lie.
...

> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

...
> Another lie.
...

>> We have a whole bunch of other stuff to sell though.
>
> They weren't given the money so they could have them for free.

In US Millions, aid to Pakistan:

YEAR ECONOMIC MILITARY
2001 0.54 0.00
2002 744.74 1739.70
2003 284.81 1760.23
2004 316.56 891.39
2005 374.04 1397.06
2006 488.46 1246.10
2007 498.91 1079.72
2008 392.05 1378.32
2009 1076.25 1114.26
2010 1529.53 2524.61

See any numbers there that might pay for an F-16?

--
Dan Espen

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>> It's even good crash protection.

Like hell it is.

>>> If you run off the road into plowed ground,
>>> you're going to slow down pretty quick.

Much better ways to slow down pretty quickly.

>> I see a possible flaw. Isn't a crash, by
>> definition, slowing down rather quickly?

> Instead of plowing into a wall or tree when leaving the road,
> you drive across tilled soil and slow down because you sink in.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to have a collapsible barrier instead.

> Probably not going to save millions of lives.

Absolutely certainly won't save even a single one over the better approach.

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
> But there are loads of people that don't have the strength, stamina,
> or smarts to build roads. A big chunk of them can operate a spade,
> poke a hole in the ground, stick a plant in it. Come back and weed
> and water.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012n.html#84 OT: Tax breaks to Oracle debated
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#1 OT: Tax breaks to Oracle debated
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012o.html#2 OT: Tax breaks to Oracle debated

Volcker in discussion with civil engineering professor about
significantly decline (for decades) in infrastructure projects (as
institutions skimmed funds for other purposes & disappearing civil
engineering jobs) resulting in universities cutting back civil
engineering programs; "Confidence Men", pg290:

Well, I said, 'The trouble with the United States recently is we spent
several decades not producing many civil engineers and producing a
huge number of financial engineers. And the result is s**tty bridges
and a s**tty financial system!

... snip ...

followup was that stimulas funds pumping money into infrastructure
projects (in many case after decades of neglect) ... contracts were
going to foreign companies that still had civil engineers.

past posts mentioning volcker comment
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011p.html#91 Has anyone successfully migrated off mainframes?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012.html#44 Who originated the phrase "user-friendly"?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012b.html#43 Where are all the old tech workers?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012c.html#63 The Economist's Take on Financial Innovation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012f.html#67 Cartons of Punch Cards
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#30 24/7/365 appropriateness was Re: IBMLink outages in 2012
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012g.html#48 Owl: China Swamps US Across the Board -- Made in China Computer Chips Have Back Doors, 45 Other "Ways & Means" Sucking Blood from US
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012h.html#77 Interesting News Article

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Pakistan is NOT 'loading up on advanced US weapons'

>> Have fun listing even a single example of
>> an advanced US weapon they have got.

> The Pakistanis fly F-16s and JF-17s.

What they do have aint anything like advanced US weapons.

>> But its completely stupid to be paying hordes of the unemployed
>> to plant flowers when the bulk of the first world has IMMENSE deficits.
>> It makes a lot more sense to be employing them to do much
>> more useful stuff like highway and bridge infrastructure instead.

> Last time we did highway and bridge was the first stimulus.
> That did not put enough people to work.

Then you lot need to do more of that, stupid.

> We only need so many roads and bridges,

You lot need a lot more than you are currently building.

> and I say build them now because people need work.

And it's much more useful work than planting fucking flowers.

> But there are loads of people that don't have the strength, stamina,

You don't need any of that to build roads today, stupid.

> or smarts to build roads.

Taint rocket science.

> A big chunk of them can operate a spade,
> poke a hole in the ground, stick a plant in it.
> Come back and weed and water.

The vast bulk of those who are currently out
of work can do a hell of a lot more productive
work that is needed than shit like that.

> The manpower requirements are enormous, pretty much open ended.

And only a fool would propose they are employed doing shit like that.

You qualify.

> What good is worrying about the deficit
> when you have people not working?

It makes sense to spend that money on getting stuff done
that will last a hell of a lot longer than fucking flowers.

> First get everyone working,

Never going to be possible. Plenty don't want to work.

> then cut whatever you can, including some military welfare,
> then raise taxes slowly until the deficit starts going down.

Taint gunna happen if you lot are actually stupid
enough to get that 25M planting fucking flowers.

It might if they were employed doing useful stuff like teaching
kids, building infrastructure that will help people get around
more efficiently and spend more of their time doing useful
work and less time wasting their time sitting in their cars
driving to and from work every day etc etc etc.

>> And yes, I would personally pull the plug on the bulk of the military
>> expenditure, and wouldn't have been stupid enough to invade Iraq
>> at all, and would have only done the initial fucking over of
>> Afghanistan from the air and would not have been stupid enough
>> to actually try occupying that place when those clowns can't even
>> manage to conduct an election, let alone have a viable govt.

> Agree with all that.

>> But pulling the plug on the bulk of the military would only make
>> the unemployment problem MUCH worse in the US right now.

> See above plan.

That aint a plan, it's just you wanking yourself completely fucking blind,
again.

> What would you rather subsidize, selling military hardware, or flowers?

Stupidly binary. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to be spending
the money on useful infrastructure that makes the economy
more productive and doing other stuff like teaching kids so they
are usefully employable etc etc etc.

>>> We have a whole bunch of other stuff to sell though.

>> They weren't given the money so they could have them for free.

> In US Millions, aid to Pakistan:

> YEAR ECONOMIC MILITARY
> 2001 0.54 0.00
> 2002 744.74 1739.70
> 2003 284.81 1760.23
> 2004 316.56 891.39
> 2005 374.04 1397.06
> 2006 488.46 1246.10
> 2007 498.91 1079.72
> 2008 392.05 1378.32
> 2009 1076.25 1114.26
> 2010 1529.53 2524.61

None of that got them any F16s for free, liar.

> See any numbers there that might pay for an F-16?

None of that got them any F16s for free, fuckwit.

[Dan Espen]

Yeah, yeah. It's not a hi-tech barrier, there are places for things
like that, like in front of bridge abutments.

Currently I see huge swaths of lawn, bushes, and small trees.
The lawn is easy to take care of, they just mow it a few times a year.

To employ people, you assign them a patch of lawn and have them plant
flowers. The main benefit is not for crash protection.

The main benefit is beauty and jobs.

But they won't be a hazard, if you fall asleep and drive off the
road, you have a chance of getting bogged down in somebody's patch
of gladiolus.

--
Dan Espen

[Dan Espen]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:

> fuckwit.

Yep, I must be.

--
Dan Espen

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote
>>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>>>> It's even good crash protection.

>> Like hell it is.

>>>>> If you run off the road into plowed ground,
>>>>> you're going to slow down pretty quick.

>> Much better ways to slow down pretty quickly.

>>>> I see a possible flaw. Isn't a crash, by
>>>> definition, slowing down rather quickly?

>>> Instead of plowing into a wall or tree when leaving the road,
>>> you drive across tilled soil and slow down because you sink in.

>> Makes a hell of a lot more sense to have a collapsible barrier instead.

>>> Probably not going to save millions of lives.

>> Absolutely certainly won't save even a single one over the better
>> approach.

> Yeah, yeah. It's not a hi-tech barrier,

It is in fact a completely fucked approach essentially because
it needs to be replowed continually and that repeatedly
replowed ground will just blow and wash away quite quickly.

> there are places for things like that, like in front of bridge abutments.

> Currently I see huge swaths of lawn, bushes, and small trees.
> The lawn is easy to take care of, they just mow it a few times a year.

And that works a hell of a lot better than plowed ground.

> To employ people, you assign them a patch of lawn and have
> them plant flowers. The main benefit is not for crash protection.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to have them
do what provides crash protection as well.

> The main benefit is beauty and jobs.

I much prefer the grass and bushes for beauty.

There are plenty better jobs that deliver a much better result.

> But they won't be a hazard, if you fall asleep and
> drive off the road, you have a chance of getting
> bogged down in somebody's patch of gladiolus.

Fuck all chance in fact given that it wont be continually replowed.

It's a completely stupid approach compared with employing
the same people to do something useful instead.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> fuckwit.

> Yep, I must be.

Yep, even your clown isnt actually stupid enough to
propose planting lots of flowers, because he knows
what the voters would do to him if he was that stupid.

[Nick Spalding]

Dan Espen wrote, in <ic39135...@home.home>
on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:17:54 -0400:

> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:16:32 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
> >>the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
> >>gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
> >>daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
> >>anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
> >>get into the act breeding new flowers.
> >
> > Fuschias and gladioli? Can we get fuschias and gladioli?
>
> The Fuschias I know aren't hardy (NJ).
> Anywhere they grow, really nice:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Cultivated_Fucshias_at_BBC_Gardeners%27_World.jpg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/94k8w39

They are more or less a weed in parts of SW Ireland.

> My mom grew them in Suffolk LI, NY.
> She shaded them and left them outdoors in the summer,
> then put them in the greenhouse in the winter.
> It just flowered like crazy.
>
>
> Gladioli, love em.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Gladiolus_7-19-06.JPG
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9m6b7ak
>
>
> >>It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
> >>ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.
> >
> > I see a possible flaw. Isn't a crash, by definition, slowing
> > down rather quickly?
>
> Instead of plowing into a wall or tree when leaving the road,
> you drive across tilled soil and slow down because you sink in.
>
> Probably not going to save millions of lives.
--

Nick Spalding

[Peter Flass]

On 10/24/2012 7:30 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
>> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.
>
> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
> less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
> their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
> under threat of violence.
>
>> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but a
>> fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
>> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.
>
> You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust governmental entities
> to actually deliver what they promise..."
>

I don't trust any of them. "If you think everyone is out to get you,
you're probably right."

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

On 10/24/2012 12:04 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> In article <2012102...@news.eternal-september.org>,

> rogb...@iname.invalid (Roger Blake) writes:
>
>> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but
>>> a fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
>>> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.
>>
>> You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust governmental entities
>> to actually deliver what they promise..."
>

> Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between the two groups,
> those two statements are becoming synonymous. The ones with the body
> parts in a vise are those of us who the chairman of BP, in a moment
> of inadvertent candour, referred to as "the small people".
>

Historically this is the usual case and what we've had the last 100
years or so has been the aberration. The king would give his buddies
some kind of monopoly and in return they gave him support.

--
Pete

[Shmuel Metz]

In <icwqyf4...@home.home>, on 10/24/2012

at 08:47 PM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:

>The Pakistanis fly F-16s and JF-17s.

Don't confuse him with facts.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[jmfbahciv]

Dan Espen wrote:
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:

>
>> Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2012-10-24, Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

>>>> Unsurprising. Corporations have become accustomed to extorting money
>>>> (in the form of tax breaks) from communities.
>>>
>>> Getting a deal from the local warlords wherein they pledge to loot
>>> less from you in exchange for employing some of the peasantry under
>>> their rule is hardly "extorting money." Quite the opposite, government
>>> is the nonproductive entity extorting money from the producers of wealth
>>> under threat of violence.
>>

>> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims. Taxes
>> are what every economic entity pays to keep their share of society
>> running, whether they're a person or a corporation. Exempting some
>> corporations from paying their share of taxes should be completely
>> unacceptable, and it's a sign of the decay of civilization that some of
>> them are allowed to get away with it.
>
> Amen.
>
> Government giveaways are much more massive than most people realize.
> The overwhelming majority goes to businesses, the most notable the MIC,

> or MICC if you prefer.
>

> Nothing puts people to work like building Nuclear Carriers, submarines,
> and missile systems. Don't have enough buyers, simple, give money to
> foreign militaries. Sort out the deaths and dictatorships later.
>

> That's why my favorite proposed government program is flower gardens on
> the interstates. It puts massive numbers of people to work and everyone
> gets the benefit. Think of it, thousands of miles of roses, dahlias,
> daffodils, portulaca, daisies. The views will be spectacular, almost
> anyone can do the work and it's good for all of us. Even scientists can
> get into the act breeding new flowers.
>

> It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
> ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.

What cars?

/BAH

>

[Patrick Scheible]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:

> Last time we did highway and bridge was the first stimulus.
> That did not put enough people to work.
> We only need so many roads and bridges, and I say build them now
> because people need work.

There's still a lot of civil engineering needs that are unmet. I could
get up to a couple of billion $ easily without even leaving my county.

-- Patrick

[Patrick Scheible]

> Completely trivial for even a fool like you to check that that’s a
> lie.

Oh, hi, Rod. Bye, Rod.

-- Patrick

[Dan Espen]

Agreed. Every traffic jam indicates inadequate travel options.
Fixing tie ups saves gas and time.
Saving time boosts productivity.

--
Dan Espen

[grey...@mail.com]

On 2012-10-24, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:28:54 -0700
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>
>> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims. Taxes
>> are what every economic entity pays to keep their share of society
>> running, whether they're a person or a corporation. Exempting some
>> corporations from paying their share of taxes should be completely
>> unacceptable, and it's a sign of the decay of civilization that some of
>> them are allowed to get away with it.
>

> I think you'll find it's been going on for about as long as
> taxation.
>

India in the early european exploration, the Portugese,Dutch,English,
French arrived and offered to have their `factories' (Trading places?)
at your town instead of one further up the coast, if you gave them
preference , Well for a start, they were given permission, but after
a while.

In Ireland, I am told, part of the agreement is that you employ so
many people.. Leads to some square pegs in round holes.


--
maus
.
.
...

[Rod Speed]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
> Charlie Gibbs wrote
>> rogb...@iname.invalid (Roger Blake) wrote

>>> Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote

>>>> bankruptcy, or sale of the parent company. These days, nobody but a
>>>> fool would trust corporate entities to actually deliver what the
>>>> promise, without having their vital body parts in a vise beforehand.

>>> You meant to say "nobody but a fool would trust governmental entities to
>>> actually deliver what they promise..."

>> Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between the two groups,
>> those two statements are becoming synonymous. The ones with the body
>> parts in a vise are those of us who the chairman of BP, in a moment of
>> inadvertent candour, referred to as "the small people".

> Historically this is the usual case and what we've had the last 100 years
> or so has been the aberration.

Has been a hell of a lot more than 100 years with the best of them like the
US.

> The king would give his buddies some kind of monopoly and in return they
> gave him support.

That stopped a lot more than 100 years ago in the best of them.

[Rod Speed]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>> Last time we did highway and bridge was the first stimulus.
>>> That did not put enough people to work.
>>> We only need so many roads and bridges, and I say build them now
>>> because people need work.

>> There's still a lot of civil engineering needs that are unmet. I could
>> get up to a couple of billion $ easily without even leaving my county.

> Agreed. Every traffic jam indicates inadequate travel options.
> Fixing tie ups saves gas and time.
> Saving time boosts productivity.

And that's a MUCH better use of the money than stupid flower beds which don't.

[Peter Flass]

No. Fixing tie-ups results in more cars on the road which results in
more tie-ups. It's another version of somebody-or-other's law. A new
highway is great for a few weeks until everybody starts to take
advantage of it.

--
Pete

[Dave Garland]

On 10/25/2012 8:35 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:

> Dan Espen wrote:
>> It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into plowed
>> ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.
>
> What cars?
>

In some areas, highway departments used to plant multiflora roses in
the median. Once they are established, they're extremely hardy, and
quickly form a nearly impenetrable hedge. I recall reading that a
double row of multiflora roses would stop a car going 60mph. They
also screened headlight glare from the opposite lanes.

Unfortunately, multiflora roses seem to have fallen from favor, and
are now known as a noxious invasive species, so I guess that isn't an
option any more.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 25 Oct 2012 16:49:53 GMT

grey...@mail.com wrote:

> In Ireland, I am told, part of the agreement is that you employ so
> many people.. Leads to some square pegs in round holes.

Yes that was part of the requirements for the 10% corporate tax.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Dan Espen]

Yes, I'm aware of that line of reasoning.

I did say "travel options".

But the idea that you can "solve" a problem by not solving it and hoping
it goes away doesn't make much sense to me.

Unless you think traffic tie ups are a good thing.

--
Dan Espen

[Patrick Scheible]

Ideally you shoot for somewhere in the middle. Yes, congestion-free
highways will induce more trips (you probably mean Parkinson's Law).
However, if there's lots of congestion all day every day, it's probably
all trips that people have to take already.

In Seattle, we're replacing and widening a bridge and paying for it with
tolls, but collecting no tolls on the parallel bridge about three miles
away. Result: much less traffic on the tolled bridge, to the point
where the planned expansion won't be necessary for another decade or
two, and much more traffic on the free bridge and the highways leading
to and from it. Who could have predicted that??

-- Patrick

[Patrick Scheible]

That's too bad. In California, there's not enough rain in the summer
for roses most places, and the highway department put in ice plant.
It's not much better than bare dirt as far as looks are concerned. In
Washington, they typically don't plant anything and let the native
grasses and weeds fight it out, mowing them once a year or so. After a
while, at least west of the Cascades, everygreens come up and crowd out
everything else.

-- Patrick

[Ben Pfaff]

Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
> Unless you think traffic tie ups are a good thing.

They do encourage alternative means of transportation. On my
commute, I zoom by stopped cars on my bicycle. I imagine that a
given road can carry 10x times as many commuters on bicycles as
in single-occupancy passenger cars.

[Walter Banks]

From the outside looking in..

The US pre WW2 developed some very good infrastructure to
create power grids and power generation that fueled the
manufacturing industries. Power was cheap and labor was
productive.

Post WW2 an aging rail system was largely replaced by a very
well engineered interstate highway system to move goods and
people. This created low cost products and efficient
distribution. The infrastructure enhancements stopped and
in the last couple of decades has not been well maintained.

Both of these infrastructure projects were national projects that
enabled thousands of small innovative companies to thrive.

There is a bunch of things that could be done to make the
US competitive in the short and long term again. Short term
structure the economy to favor value added activities over
cash extraction from cash flow.

The long term infrastructure, catch up to the rest of the world
in internet technology. Currently the US internet does very
well for email, instant messaging and web site hosting. Internet
innovation that would have a long term impact would be to
integrate the cable, cell and land line phone and education links
on a secure communications infrastructure . Standardize the
access and data structures. There is a good model for this in
the automotive industry standardization. I know that most
of the pieces already exist.

It would do two things

1) Bring education to the whole population,
"Big Bird on the net in 21 century" could significantly reduce
the labor costs of education and provide a more diverse way
of distributing knowledge.

2) Create diverse virtual companies or associations
of companies tied to specific product development. This
would play to the strengths of the US in business organization
and management.

From the outside looking in..

/rant


w..

[Scott Lurndal]

Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:

>That's too bad. In California, there's not enough rain in the summer
>for roses most places, and the highway department put in ice plant.

Around here (LA to SF), it's mostly oleanders in the
median, and various drought-resistant trees & vines along the soundwalls
and interchanges.

I've seen them baling hay in the median of I505.

scott

[Rod Speed]

Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote
> Patrick Scheible wrote
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>> Last time we did highway and bridge was the first stimulus.
>>> That did not put enough people to work.
>>> We only need so many roads and bridges, and I say build them now
>>> because people need work.

>> There's still a lot of civil engineering needs that are unmet. I could
>> get up to a couple of billion $ easily without even leaving my county.

> From the outside looking in..

> The US pre WW2 developed some very good infrastructure
> to create power grids and power generation

Yes.

> that fueled the manufacturing industries.

That's very arguable indeed. It was more a response to that need.

> Power was cheap and labor was productive.

And there wasn't any real competition from other than western europe.

> Post WW2 an aging rail system was largely replaced by a very
> well engineered interstate highway system to move goods and
> people. This created low cost products and efficient distribution.

Yes.

> The infrastructure enhancements stopped

Just slowed down, it never stopped.

> and in the last couple of decades has not been well maintained.

That's just plain wrong.

> Both of these infrastructure projects were national projects that
> enabled thousands of small innovative companies to thrive.

And the huge development of military hardware in spades.

> There is a bunch of things that could be done to make
> the US competitive in the short and long term again.

That's very arguable indeed with the manufacture of low
cost consumer goods.

> Short term structure the economy to favor value
> added activities over cash extraction from cash flow.

Easier said than done. Have fun listing even a single
modern first world economy that has ever done that.

> The long term infrastructure, catch up to
> the rest of the world in internet technology.

That's silly. The US does that very well. The only real areas
where some places do some things a bit better are tiny little
places where its feasible to do fiber to the home and business
to almost everywhere that wants it. Just not feasible in a place
as big as America or Canada or Australia etc.

> Currently the US internet does very well for
> email, instant messaging and web site hosting.

It does very well with a hell of a lot more than just those areas.

> Internet innovation that would have a long term impact
> would be to integrate the cable, cell and land line phone
> and education links on a secure communications infrastructure .

No one has actually done that.

> Standardize the access and data structures.

That's already happened.

> There is a good model for this in the
> automotive industry standardization.

Nope, that industry is in fact nothing like as standardised
as the comms industry. You can just drop in any router
you like with most configs, not with the auto industry.

> I know that most of the pieces already exist.

> It would do two things

> 1) Bring education to the whole population,

That wouldn't happen with the dregs of the population that
has no access to any comms infrastructure better than a phone
and even those that do only have access to phone technology
wouldn't have anything like enough to be viable for education.

>"Big Bird on the net in 21 century" could significantly
> reduce the labor costs of education and provide a
> more diverse way of distributing knowledge.

We already have that with TV and have
done for well over half a century now.

It didn't produce the result you claim.

> 2) Create diverse virtual companies or associations
> of companies tied to specific product development.
> This would play to the strengths of the US in
> business organization and management.

That's already there now.

> From the outside looking in..

You're not really outside it, the US/Canada market
is really just one market in all but a formality.

[Rod Speed]

"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k6bvea$c6o$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 10/25/2012 12:25 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Last time we did highway and bridge was the first stimulus.
>>>> That did not put enough people to work.
>>>> We only need so many roads and bridges, and I say build them now
>>>> because people need work.
>>>
>>> There's still a lot of civil engineering needs that are unmet. I could
>>> get up to a couple of billion $ easily without even leaving my county.
>>
>> Agreed. Every traffic jam indicates inadequate travel options.
>> Fixing tie ups saves gas and time.
>> Saving time boosts productivity.

> No.

Yep.

> Fixing tie-ups results in more cars on the road which results in more
> tie-ups. It's another version of somebody-or-other's law. A new highway
> is great for a few weeks until everybody starts to take advantage of it.

Using that mindlessly silly line, we'd still have just
unsealed goat tracks and no interstates etc at all.

[Walter Banks]

Rod Speed wrote:

> Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote

>
> > The long term infrastructure, catch up to
> > the rest of the world in internet technology.
>
> That's silly. The US does that very well. The only real areas
> where some places do some things a bit better are tiny little
> places where its feasible to do fiber to the home and business
> to almost everywhere that wants it. Just not feasible in a place
> as big as America or Canada or Australia etc.
>

I guess the fiber optic cable that supplies my internet is a
figment of my imagination. The nearest town is 30Km away.
And last time I checked I do live in Canada

The fiber optic cable TV line to my fathers house was installed
more than 30 years ago.

> > From the outside looking in..
>
> You're not really outside it, the US/Canada market
> is really just one market in all but a formality.

You sure don't understand Canadian American cultural
differences.

w..

[Rod Speed]

Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote

>>> The long term infrastructure, catch up to
>>> the rest of the world in internet technology.

>> That's silly. The US does that very well. The only real areas
>> where some places do some things a bit better are tiny little
>> places where its feasible to do fiber to the home and business
>> to almost everywhere that wants it. Just not feasible in a place
>> as big as America or Canada or Australia etc.

> I guess the fiber optic cable that supplies
> my internet is a figment of my imagination.

Nope, just you not being able to read
and comprehend what was written.

> The nearest town is 30Km away. And
> last time I checked I do live in Canada

Never said that that isnt there in SOME places in those countrys.

It is with the US and Australia too.

> The fiber optic cable TV line to my fathers
> house was installed more than 30 years ago.

Irrelevant to my comment on your silly claim at the top.

>> > From the outside looking in..

>> You're not really outside it, the US/Canada market
>> is really just one market in all but a formality.

> You sure don't understand Canadian American cultural differences.

They are irrelevant to what is being discussed.

[Roger Blake]

On 2012-10-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims.

Government is a collection of armed thugs. It is people being forced
to work together at the point of a gun. Any history book will
confirm this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rod Speed]

Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote

> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote

>> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims.

> Government is a collection of armed thugs.

Fuck all of my govt is armed.

And there are a hell of a lot more armed thugs that matter in
some armpit of the world like Somalia than in my country too.

> It is people being forced to work
> together at the point of a gun.

Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.

You aint being forced to work at all, you are free to hang yourself any time
you like.

It isnt even illegal in most of the modern first world now.

> Any history book will confirm this.

Usual utterly mindless silly stuff.

[Peter Flass]

On 10/25/2012 4:09 PM, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
> In Seattle, we're replacing and widening a bridge and paying for it with
> tolls, but collecting no tolls on the parallel bridge about three miles
> away. Result: much less traffic on the tolled bridge, to the point
> where the planned expansion won't be necessary for another decade or
> two, and much more traffic on the free bridge and the highways leading
> to and from it. Who could have predicted that??
>

I don't know what the tolls are, but a dollar or so each way every day
adds up, especially when added to high gas prices. What you get the the
1% driving the fine new bridge and the 99% crowded onto the old,
not-so-fine one. Do you use automated collection- what we call
"EZ-Pass?" If not, you add a delay to the toll too.


--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

Except in the winter. Maybe not a problem in Seattle, where you usually
only contend with (lots of) rain, but in most of the rest of the country
we get several feet of snow and temperatures at 0�F or lower.

I'd like to see light rail, but the droids from the local bus company
managed to get their hands on the proposal it and got it killed.

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

On 10/25/2012 4:52 PM, Walter Banks wrote:
> Currently the US internet does very
> well for email, instant messaging and web site hosting. Internet
> innovation that would have a long term impact would be to
> integrate the cable, cell and land line phone and education links
> on a secure communications infrastructure

It's the "secure" that would cost big bucks, not just in the sense of
"hacker-proof" but even more in the sense of "reliable" and "resilient."

Hurricane Irene showed last year that cell-phone infrastructure is
nowhere near ready for prime time, to say nothing of internet. I am
assuming that the backbone is industrial strength, but the last mile to
the home or business is nowhere near the standard of POTS - probably
isn't anywhere in the world.


--
Pete

[jmfbahciv]

And no maintenance. I was commenting on the OP's proposal that all
workers do the planting. If there is no labor to make the cars
and maintain roads, there won't be any cars.

/BAH

[Ben Pfaff]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:

> On 10/25/2012 4:25 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> writes:
>>> Unless you think traffic tie ups are a good thing.
>>
>> They do encourage alternative means of transportation. On my
>> commute, I zoom by stopped cars on my bicycle. I imagine that a
>> given road can carry 10x times as many commuters on bicycles as
>> in single-occupancy passenger cars.
>
> Except in the winter. Maybe not a problem in Seattle, where you
> usually only contend with (lots of) rain, but in most of the rest of

> the country we get several feet of snow and temperatures at 0ºF or
> lower.

Weather isn't a real problem here in the Bay Area. I commute by
bike every day, rain or shine.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <867gqef...@zipcon.net>, on 10/25/2012

at 01:13 PM, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> said:

>That's too bad. In California, there's not enough rain in the summer
>for roses most places, and the highway department put in ice plant.
>It's not much better than bare dirt as far as looks are concerned.

Interesting; I consider ice plant to be ornamental. Chacun à son goût.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 24, 3:41 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > IBM and others learned a great deal of programming and technology from
> > doing the SAGE project, a missile defense system.
>
> IBM, programming?
> The type of programming they did on the space program has little
> commercial application.

The S/360 history reports that SAGE programming dealt with real-time
events and interactive terminals as opposed to traditional batch
processing. The experience gained on SAGE real-time programming
contributed to meeting the real-time needs of SABRE which followed.


> Meanwhile, IBM couldn't put together an OS for their own PC.

SAGE and the PC were unrelated, separated by decades. For the PC, IBM
decided not to re-invent the wheel and utilize an off-the-shelf
program.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 24, 3:47 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> Oh, I don't trust them either.  But at least government has the
> theoretical goal of the common good, and (in the US) I have the
> theoretical possibility of voting them out.  Corporations have the de
> jure goal of enriching their stockholders (and the de facto goal of
> enriching their management), at the expense of anyone else, and they
> don't give a fig for what I think.  For the most part, in the absence
> of aggressive unions and public-interest groups, government is the
> only way to restrain the rapacious tendencies of corporations.

Along those lines, while stockholders of corporations theorectically
vote for their Boards of Directors, in reality management is in tight
control in most cases.

In IBM, Watson Sr owned at most only 5% of the stock of the company,
yet was totally in charge, as was his son.

In the Penn Central bankruptcy debacle, many of the Board members were
clueless as to the true financial problems of the company.
(Ironically, there are some who want to eliminate Amtrak and return to
the dark days of the Penn Central because the Penn Central was
'private sector').

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 25, 4:17 pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:

> Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> writes:

> > No.  Fixing tie-ups results in more cars on the road which results in
> > more tie-ups.  It's another version of somebody-or-other's law.  A new
> > highway is great for a few weeks until everybody starts to take
> > advantage of it.
>
> Ideally you shoot for somewhere in the middle.  Yes, congestion-free
> highways will induce more trips (you probably mean Parkinson's Law).
> However, if there's lots of congestion all day every day, it's probably
> all trips that people have to take already.

Unfortunately, transportation options have become an ideological
issue. For some ideological reason, the right-wing is vehemently
opposed to _any_ Amtrak or local light rail lines despite their proven
record of cost-effective success, and the extremely high cost to the
general taxpayer of building roads and airways.

The real solution is a balance. The vast majority of travellers will
continue to fly or drive--that is not going to change. (The
ideologues falsely charge that people will be forced to give their
cars). But in developed dense travel corridors highways and airways
are now overloaded and require enormous amounts of scarce land to meet
their demand. Rail can carry large numbers of people on a narrow
footprint, and create a win-win for everyone. Amtrak has a bunch of
good corridor improvement plans gathering dust.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 26, 7:58 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hurricane Irene showed last year that cell-phone infrastructure is
> nowhere near ready for prime time, to say nothing of internet.  I am
> assuming that the backbone is industrial strength, but the last mile to
> the home or business is nowhere near the standard of POTS - probably
> isn't anywhere in the world.

POTS isn't what it used to be. In pre-divestiture days, the Bell
System took great pride in providing a highly reliable cost-effective
system. (Obviously in something so large there were exceptions and
trouble spots). But today service is provided by a plethora of
providers aiming for lowest cost--and consumers accept lousy service.
For instance, in my area if the power goes out people with cable-
provided phone service are cut off, and they seem to accept that--hey
they're saving money. But even the successor baby bells don't care,
providing lousy service, too.

It's ironic that a monopoly, supposedly the boogie-man to the American
Dream, provided better service than the much -vaunted "competition".

[Ibmekon]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:48:43 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <867gqef...@zipcon.net>, on 10/25/2012
> at 01:13 PM, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> said:
>
>>That's too bad. In California, there's not enough rain in the summer
>>for roses most places, and the highway department put in ice plant.
>>It's not much better than bare dirt as far as looks are concerned.
>

>Interesting; I consider ice plant to be ornamental. Chacun � son go�t.

My schoolboy French prompted me to check.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chacun_%C3%A0_son_go%C3%BBt

Carl Goldsworthy

[Patrick Scheible]

The toll rates are variable by time of day, ranging from free from
midnight to 5 AM to $3.59 for the morning and evening commutes. Yes,
it's become the 1%'s bridge. Yes, toll collection is automated. The
other bridge isn't so bad, not being all that old either, but the main
highways through downtown Seattle and Bellevue were already congested
and are now much worse because of people driving around to take the
"free" bridge.

-- Patrick

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> For instance, in my area if the power goes out people with cable-
> provided phone service are cut off, and they seem to accept that--hey
> they're saving money.

That and with cell phones and VOIP lines being available having the
landline go down is no longer the end of rapid long distance comms so
outages are more acceptable.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Shmuel Metz]

In <l4dl8857u37oj0tlv...@4ax.com>, on 10/26/2012

at 05:09 PM, Ibmekon said:

>My schoolboy French prompted me to check.

>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chacun_%C3%A0_son_go%C3%BBt

To the best of my knowledge Franz Lehï¿œr was not an Anglophone.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 26, 12:59 pm, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

> > For instance, in my area if the power goes out people with cable-
> > provided phone service are cut off, and they seem to accept that--hey
> > they're saving money.
>
>         That and with cell phones and VOIP lines being available having the
> landline go down is no longer the end of rapid long distance comms so
> outages are more acceptable.

Except in a bad situation VOIP lines may also fail, such as if they're
carried by the cable company. Cell phone towers often are overcrowded
and not accessible during emergencies due to high calling volume.
Further, a cell phone tower's battery supply may run out.

Traditional telephone company central offices had a large diesel
generator to provide long term backup. (I have never lost phone
service even after long term power failures).

[Charles Richmond]

"Roger Blake" <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote in message
news:2012102...@news.eternal-september.org...

> On 2012-10-24, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> Government is people working together to accomplish common aims.
>
> Government is a collection of armed thugs. It is people being forced
> to work together at the point of a gun. Any history book will
> confirm this.
>

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Uncle Steve]

I don't think you've isolated your variables correctly. While it may
be true that consumer telecommunications service has degraded across
the board subsequent to divestiture of the Bell monopoly, that does
not imply a direct causal link. Similarly, the fact that Bell System
was more reliable can be attributed to the vastly simplified
technology employed in comparison to 4G, xDSL, cable, etc.
Personally, I think the general trend of increasingly shoddy service
and shoddy product being foisted off on the consumer is a society-wide
problem, and has to do with shifting values.

Large monopoly corporate concerns have a greatly enhanced potential to
use their size and weight to affect the market as compared to smaller
business concerns. The breakup was probably for the better.



Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
My people and I have come to an agreement that satisfies us both.
They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.
- Frederick the Great, c. 1770

[Rod Speed]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote
> Ben Pfaff wrote
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>> Unless you think traffic tie ups are a good thing.

>> They do encourage alternative means of transportation. On my commute, I
>> zoom by stopped cars on my bicycle. I imagine that a given road can
>> carry 10x times as many commuters on bicycles as in single-occupancy
>> passenger cars.

> Except in the winter. Maybe not a problem in Seattle, where you usually
> only contend with (lots of) rain, but in most of the rest of the country
> we get several feet of snow and temperatures at 0�F or lower.

Mindlessly silly with california alone.

> I'd like to see light rail, but the droids from the local bus company
> managed to get their hands on the proposal it and got it killed.

Yeah, yeah, its those damned jews conspiring in smoke filled rooms
to shaft us all...

[Rod Speed]

Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote

> Walter Banks wrote

>> Currently the US internet does very well for email,
>> instant messaging and web site hosting. Internet
>> innovation that would have a long term impact
>> would be to integrate the cable, cell and land line phone
>> and education links on a secure communications infrastructure

> It's the "secure" that would cost big bucks, not just in the sense of
> "hacker-proof" but even more in the sense of "reliable" and "resilient."

Bullshit.

> Hurricane Irene showed last year that cell-phone infrastructure
> is nowhere near ready for prime time, to say nothing of internet.

Our floods in Brisbane showed the exact opposite.

> I am assuming that the backbone is industrial
> strength, but the last mile to the home or
> business is nowhere near the standard of POTS

It's a lot better than the POTS in much of the first world now.

> - probably isn't anywhere in the world.

Wrong, as always.

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
> Dave Garland wrote

>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>> Dan Espen wrote

>>>> It's even good crash protection. If you run off the road into
>>>> plowed ground, you're going to slow down pretty quick.

>>> What cars?

>> In some areas, highway departments used to plant multiflora roses
>> in the median. Once they are established, they're extremely hardy,
>> and quickly form a nearly impenetrable hedge. I recall reading
>> that a double row of multiflora roses would stop a car going 60mph.
>> They also screened headlight glare from the opposite lanes.

>> Unfortunately, multiflora roses seem to have fallen from favor, and
>> are now known as a noxious invasive species, so I guess that isn't an
>> option any more.

> And no maintenance. I was commenting on the
> OP's proposal that all workers do the planting.

He never ever said anything about ALL WORKERS planting flowers.

> If there is no labor to make the cars and maintain roads,

He never ever suggested anything of the sort.

> there won't be any cars.

Completely off with the fucking fairys, as always.

[Rod Speed]

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> wrote

>>> For instance, in my area if the power goes out people with cable-
>>> provided phone service are cut off, and they seem to accept that--
>>> hey they're saving money.

>> That and with cell phones and VOIP lines being available having the
>> landline go down is no longer the end of rapid long distance comms
>> so outages are more acceptable.

> Except in a bad situation VOIP lines may also fail,
> such as if they're carried by the cable company.

That's only a small subset of most voip and those with
that sort of voip service normally have a cell service too.

> Cell phone towers often are overcrowded and not accessible
> during emergencies due to high calling volume.

Not very often at all, actually.

> Further, a cell phone tower's battery supply may run out.

You don't often see the mains go away for that long in built up areas.

> Traditional telephone company central offices had
> a large diesel generator to provide long term backup.

And plenty of the cell phone bases are cosited with those too.

> (I have never lost phone service even after long term power failures).

I've never lost cell phone service even after long term power failures.

[Ibmekon]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:45:25 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <l4dl8857u37oj0tlv...@4ax.com>, on 10/26/2012
> at 05:09 PM, Ibmekon said:
>
>>My schoolboy French prompted me to check.
>
>>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chacun_%C3%A0_son_go%C3%BBt
>

>To the best of my knowledge Franz Leh�r was not an Anglophone.


Or Francophone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Leh%C3%A1r

[Rod Speed]

"Uncle Steve" <stev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dafafcaf9e...@gmail.com...

I think that's a myth. My DSL service has in fact become very
reliable indeed now with not even one problem a year anymore.

And cars are in fact much more reliable than they used to be too.

> Large monopoly corporate concerns

There are in fact fuck all corporate monopolys anymore.