Daylight Savings Time again
Patrick Scheible
take a look at this: http://xkcd.com/673/
-- Patrick
Charlie Gibbs
(Patrick Scheible) writes:
> Hey Barb, and whoever, next time you're browsing the web you should
> take a look at this: http://xkcd.com/673/
Love it.
--
/~\ 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!
Mensanator
> In article <w9z638dphte.fsf...@zipcon.net>, k...@zipcon.net
>
> (Patrick Scheible) writes:
> > Hey Barb, and whoever, next time you're browsing the web you should
> > take a look at this: http://xkcd.com/673/
>
> Love it.
Doesn't make any sense to me. The opposite of eternal
darkness is not eternal daylight. Daylight is a function
of the earth's rotation, not the sun's fusion.
Quadibloc
> In article <w9z638dphte.fsf...@zipcon.net>, k...@zipcon.net
> (Patrick Scheible) writes:
> > Hey Barb, and whoever, next time you're browsing the web you should
> > take a look at this: http://xkcd.com/673/
>
> Love it.
Looked at a few others. This one was particularly poignant:
Quadibloc
> Doesn't make any sense to me. The opposite of eternal
> darkness is not eternal daylight. Daylight is a function
> of the earth's rotation, not the sun's fusion.
This is true.
However, if the Sun were to cease to shine, when the Earth rotated so
as to bring the part of the Earth where you live to face the Sun, you
would still not have the Sun shining on you, and you would have no
daylight to see by.
Thus, to keep the Sun fusing is to make periodic daylight possible.
The point is not that daylight is the exact opposite of eternal
darkness. The point is that a movie could be made about saving us from
eternal darkness (rather than eternal night, as you point out)... but
it could be given a title that is a HORRIBLY BAD PUN.
It's time to save the light of day... so we'll call it Daylight Saving
Time!
And, to top it off, as a subtitle, we'll have our heroic space cowboys
(the title of another movie!) have the motto "Never Fall Back"... from
the mnemonic "Spring Ahead, Fall Back" so that people know which way
to adjust their clocks when Daylight Saving Time begins in the spring
and ends in the autumn.
Hopefully, the comic will now make sense.
John Savard
Dav Vandenbroucke
Dav Vandenbroucke
davanden at cox dot net
Joey Goggles
Explaining it doesn't make it any worse..... it's STILL a really bad
pun..... and I love BAD PUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Patrick Scheible
> On Dec 12, 7:14=A0pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Yes... explaining a pun may make it understandable, but it doesn't
make it funny.
-- Patrick
jmfbahciv
I'll try to remember to look.
Saw the 673 one. That's all we need...the P[I]ETA Congress
sending Obama to Copenhagen to save daylight.
/BAH
Eric Chomko
The cartoonist reminds me of the ones from the local university or the
free city paper. Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
Sorry...
Eric Chomko
Let Obama fix Bush's economy first. Clearly the Republicans lost their
way as the fiscally responsible party after 8 years of Bush at the
helm.
Eric
Patrick Scheible
> On Dec 14, 8:40=A0am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> > > On Dec 11, 12:29 pm, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> > >> In article <w9z638dphte.fsf...@zipcon.net>, k...@zipcon.net
> > >> (Patrick Scheible) writes:
> >
> > >>> Hey Barb, and whoever, next time you're browsing the web you should
> > >>> take a look at this: =A0http://xkcd.com/673/
> > >> Love it.
> >
> > > Looked at a few others. This one was particularly poignant:
> >
> > >http://xkcd.com/659/
> >
> > I'll try to remember to look.
> >
> > Saw the 673 one. =A0That's all we need...the P[I]ETA Congress
> > sending Obama to Copenhagen to save daylight.
> >
> > /BAH
>
> Let Obama fix Bush's economy first. Clearly the Republicans lost their
> way as the fiscally responsible party after 8 years of Bush at the
> helm.
The Republicans stopped being the party of fiscal responsibility
during the Reagan administration. They just continued to campaign on
that platform for a while anyway.
-- Patrick
Dav Vandenbroucke
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
You mean not like Garfield? So this is a good thing.
Mensanator
What was fiscally irresponsible about Reagan?
Wanting to invest a trillion dollars in a
Star Wars system that
- wouldn't work in theory
- is easily circumventable
?
> They just continued to campaign on
> that platform for a while anyway.
>
> -- Patrick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Charlie Gibbs
dav_and_france...@compuserve.com (Dav Vandenbroucke) writes:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
>
> You mean not like Garfield? So this is a good thing.
Yes, it's sad but true that strips like Garfield - and,
sadly, Peanuts - have been around too long. You have to
admire people like Gary Larson (The Far Side), and Bill
Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes), who had to sense to pull
the plug when they realized it was time.
(To be fair to Charles Schulz, he too stopped, albeit
in a more radical way. The strips that are still runing
today are little more than a reanimated corpse.)
Patrick Scheible
> On Dec 16, 2:24=A0pm, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote:
> > Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> writes:
> > > On Dec 14, 8:40=3DA0am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
> > > > Quadibloc wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 11, 12:29 pm, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrot=
> e:
> > > > >> In article <w9z638dphte.fsf...@zipcon.net>, k...@zipcon.net
> > > > >> (Patrick Scheible) writes:
> >
> > > > >>> Hey Barb, and whoever, next time you're browsing the web you shou=
> ld
> > > > >>> take a look at this: =3DA0http://xkcd.com/673/
> > > > >> Love it.
> >
> > > > > Looked at a few others. This one was particularly poignant:
> >
> > > > >http://xkcd.com/659/
> >
> > > > I'll try to remember to look.
> >
> > > > Saw the 673 one. =3DA0That's all we need...the P[I]ETA Congress
> > > > sending Obama to Copenhagen to save daylight.
> >
> > > > /BAH
> >
> > > Let Obama fix Bush's economy first. Clearly the Republicans lost their
> > > way as the fiscally responsible party after 8 years of Bush at the
> > > helm.
> >
> > The Republicans stopped being the party of fiscal responsibility
> > during the Reagan administration. =A0
>
> What was fiscally irresponsible about Reagan?
> Wanting to invest a trillion dollars in a
> Star Wars system that
>
> - wouldn't work in theory
> - is easily circumventable
>
> ?
Well, that and military spending in general. You might or might not
think it was a good idea to try outspending the Russians, but putting
it on credit instead of paying for it with taxes as we go has
certainly hurt us. And tax cuts that were not matched with spending
cuts. Voodoo economics, as the elder Bush said, before he was in
charge of the voodoo.
-- Patrick
Joe Pfeiffer
> In article <j3oii59baalphd305...@4ax.com>,
> dav_and_france...@compuserve.com (Dav Vandenbroucke) writes:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
>>
>> You mean not like Garfield? So this is a good thing.
>
> Yes, it's sad but true that strips like Garfield - and,
> sadly, Peanuts - have been around too long. You have to
> admire people like Gary Larson (The Far Side), and Bill
> Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes), who had to sense to pull
> the plug when they realized it was time.
>
> (To be fair to Charles Schulz, he too stopped, albeit
> in a more radical way. The strips that are still runing
> today are little more than a reanimated corpse.)
I haven't seen one in years, but I thought they were re-runs. Schultz,
I'm sorry to say, went on for *years* after Peanuts should have ended.
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
Gene Wirchenko
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
You should be.
Some xkcd strips have become classics. He has a
wonderfully-skewed viewpoint. One strip that I particularly liked was
the explanation of cryptography from Eve's point of view:
http://xkcd.com/177/
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
jmfbahciv
be to destroy it all.
/BAH
Charlie Gibbs
pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer) writes:
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <j3oii59baalphd305...@4ax.com>,
>> dav_and_france...@compuserve.com (Dav Vandenbroucke)
>> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>>> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
>>>
>>> You mean not like Garfield? So this is a good thing.
>>
>> Yes, it's sad but true that strips like Garfield - and,
>> sadly, Peanuts - have been around too long. You have to
>> admire people like Gary Larson (The Far Side), and Bill
>> Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes), who had to sense to pull
>> the plug when they realized it was time.
>>
>> (To be fair to Charles Schulz, he too stopped, albeit
>> in a more radical way. The strips that are still runing
>> today are little more than a reanimated corpse.)
>
> I haven't seen one in years, but I thought they were re-runs.
> Schultz, I'm sorry to say, went on for *years* after Peanuts
> should have ended.
You might be right - I was trying to give him the benefit of the
doubt. Some of the strips definitely were re-runs, but some of
them looked far too cute for that.
Joe Pfeiffer
It's easy to look at his stick figures and assume you're looking at a
grade school student who can't draw. He's done just enough really
beautifully rendered panels to show that the stick figures are a style
he chooses (see http://xkcd.com/77/), and then when you pay a little bit
of attention it turns out he's investing those stick figures with an
almost unbelievable expressiveness through their postures.
Also, of course, he's a confirmed geek with, as Gene says, a
wonderfully-skewed worldview. I've got a framed copy of his map in the
internet (http://xkcd.com/195/) on my office wall.
Patrick Scheible
> It's easy to look at his stick figures and assume you're looking at a
> grade school student who can't draw. He's done just enough really
> beautifully rendered panels to show that the stick figures are a style
> he chooses (see http://xkcd.com/77/), and then when you pay a little bit
> of attention it turns out he's investing those stick figures with an
> almost unbelievable expressiveness through their postures.
>
> Also, of course, he's a confirmed geek with, as Gene says, a
> wonderfully-skewed worldview. I've got a framed copy of his map in the
> internet (http://xkcd.com/195/) on my office wall.
Yes. There's a tremendous amount of detail in some of his comics.
Check out http://xkcd.com/657/.
Speaking of the famous Internet Map, what happened to DEC's 16.x.x.x
IP address space? Is Compaq^wHP using it? Did they sell it?
-- Patrick
Eric Chomko
<dav_and_frances_vandenbrou...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>
> >Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
>
> You mean not like Garfield? So this is a good thing.
Garfield has been made into a movie, two I think. I'd say that a movie
from a cartoon is about as good as it gets.
Eric Chomko
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>
Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
then the laugh...
Eric
Eric Chomko
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> writes:
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:25:26 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
> > <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 13, 3:31 pm, Dav Vandenbroucke
> >><dav_and_frances_vandenbrou...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >>> I've always liked this one:http://xkcd.com/349/
>
> >>> Dav Vandenbroucke
> >>> davanden at cox dot net
>
> >>The cartoonist reminds me of the ones from the local university or the
> >>free city paper. Good amatuers but not ready for a national paper.
> >>Sorry...
>
> > You should be.
>
> > Some xkcd strips have become classics. He has a
> > wonderfully-skewed viewpoint. One strip that I particularly liked was
> > the explanation of cryptography from Eve's point of view:
> > http://xkcd.com/177/
>
> It's easy to look at his stick figures and assume you're looking at a
> grade school student who can't draw. He's done just enough really
> beautifully rendered panels to show that the stick figures are a style
> of attention it turns out he's investing those stick figures with an
> almost unbelievable expressiveness through their postures.
Remember the cartoon, Rick O Shay? This guy ain't it!
>
> Also, of course, he's a confirmed geek with, as Gene says, a
> wonderfully-skewed worldview. I've got a framed copy of his map in the
> internet (http://xkcd.com/195/) on my office wall.
I'd love to see a strip I like.
Eric
Eric Chomko
No, That's what Limbaugh and the Republicans want. They want the
economy to fail , so they can blame Obama. They know it is the ONLY
way they can get back into power.
Mensanator
So, they're traitors?
> so they can blame Obama. They know it is the ONLY
> way they can get back into power.- Hide quoted text -
Dave Garland
No. Treason (in the US) is defined as "levying War" against the US,
or "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Merely
acting against the interests of the US and its people is not treason.
Dave
Dav Vandenbroucke
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Garfield has been made into a movie, two I think. I'd say that a movie
>from a cartoon is about as good as it gets.
A bad movie from a bad cartoon is good? Commercial, certainly, but
not good.
Walter Bushell
Dav Vandenbroucke <dav_and_france...@compuserve.com>
wrote:
I think that I will never see,
A cartoon as lovely as a tree.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Mensanator
Acting against the interests of the US sure sounds like
"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
to me.
So, yes, they're traitors.
>
> Dave
grey...@mail.com
>>
>
> No, That's what Limbaugh and the Republicans want. They want the
> economy to fail , so they can blame Obama. They know it is the ONLY
> way they can get back into power.
I read on BBC RSS that the head NATO honch was in Moscow looking to
`borrow' helicopters for use in Afganistan.
--
greymaus
.
.
...
Peter Flass
There should be a few spare black ones around...
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
> Eric Chomko wrote:
>
>> Let Obama fix Bush's economy first. Clearly the Republicans lost
>> their way as the fiscally responsible party after 8 years of Bush
>> at the helm.
>
> Oh, Obama and Congress is fixing the economy. The goal appears to
> be to destroy it all.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Regardless of who is
at the helm, the policy seems to be the same: take the money and
run. That's one of the reasons I capitalize "The Economy": to
distinguish it from the everyday small-e economy that the rest
of us live in.
Charles Richmond
The Republicans are lying, mean-spirited obstructionists.
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Gene Wirchenko
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
>lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
>have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
>then the laugh...
Why?
That would mean that much computer-related humour would not be
proper humour by your supposed standard since most people would not
get it without reading and rereading.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Charlie Gibbs
dave.g...@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) writes:
At least until a new, improved descendant of the Patriot Act
rewrites the definition.
Charlie Gibbs
(Walter Bushell) writes:
> In article <fr7li5l7i4hpdq3oh...@4ax.com>,
> Dav Vandenbroucke <dav_and_france...@compuserve.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:28:11 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Garfield has been made into a movie, two I think. I'd say that a
>>> movie from a cartoon is about as good as it gets.
>>
>> A bad movie from a bad cartoon is good? Commercial, certainly, but
>> not good.
Agreed. Garfield was over the hill long before the movie was made.
> I think that I will never see,
> A cartoon as lovely as a tree.
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all.
-- Ogden Nash: Song of the Open Road
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
> lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
> have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
> then the laugh...
Like any humor, you have to be plugged-in to the references he's making
for it to be immediately funny. Though I admit most of his stuff is
quite a bit more subtle than a clown slipping on a banana peel.
Quadibloc
> What was fiscally irresponsible about Reagan?
> Wanting to invest a trillion dollars in a
> Star Wars system that
>
> - wouldn't work in theory
> - is easily circumventable
>
> ?
Hey, it was a bargain, given that it fulfilled Gerald Ford's promise
to set Poland free...
John Savard
Eric Chomko
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:32:35 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
> >lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
> >have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
> >then the laugh...
>
> Why?
The answer to every "why" question is "because".
>
> That would mean that much computer-related humour would not be
> proper humour by your supposed standard since most people would not
> get it without reading and rereading.
When your sense of art is the same as your sense of engineering and
science, then it is sad, IMO.
Eric
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
Eric Chomko
> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
> > lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
> > have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
> > then the laugh...
>
> Like any humor, you have to be plugged-in to the references he's making
> for it to be immediately funny. Though I admit most of his stuff is
> quite a bit more subtle than a clown slipping on a banana peel.
Which may or may not be funny. I have gone through about a dozen of
his cartoons and found one that was funny. Want to talk clowns, then
I vote Red Skelton. Now HE was funny...
Eric
Eric Chomko
Misguided. I haven't seen actual sabotage, yet.
Eric Chomko
> greyma...@mail.com wrote:
> > On 2009-12-17, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> No, That's what Limbaugh and the Republicans want. They want the
> >> economy to fail , so they can blame Obama. They know it is the ONLY
> >> way they can get back into power.
>
> > I read on BBC RSS that the head NATO honch was in Moscow looking to
> > `borrow' helicopters for use in Afganistan.
>
> There should be a few spare black ones around...
I would have thought the spare ones from Russia would be red.
Eric Chomko
Some yes, not all.
What amazes me is that Palin quit early as govenor, wrote a book, and
went on tour to make $$$. Now is she going to return and run against
Obama in 2012 or take her money and run. You don't hear anything about
McCain anymore and no one else in the GOP looks like a potential
candidate. Clearly, the Republcans need to shake the spector of the
faith base as it no longer serves them.
Mensanator
Have you had your head up your ass for the past year?
All those running those failed financial institutions
should be taken out and shot.
>
> > > so they can blame Obama. They know it is the ONLY
> > > way they can get back into power.- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dave Garland
> In article <Gr-dnU8eb-7oFrfW...@posted.visi>,
> dave.g...@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) writes:
>> No. Treason (in the US) is defined as "levying War" against the US,
>> or "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Merely
>> acting against the interests of the US and its people is not treason.
>
> At least until a new, improved descendant of the Patriot Act
> rewrites the definition.
The new rule will have to call it something else (lemme guess, maybe
"terrorism" or "UnAmericanism"), since the Constitution explicitly
limits "treason" to that particular definition.
Dave
Alfred Falk
news:8r9ni5h1ms2t4ss76...@4ax.com:
Not just computer-related humour. I would contend that all humour
requires context. Try looking at political cartoons from another place
or time. Some are universal, and some are universal when you understand
the context. For a real education, try reading Aristophanes. Very
funny stuff, but unless you're immersed in ancient Greek culture and
history you won't get a lot of the jokes without a decent set of notes.
With the latter you'll realize politicians haven't changed in 2000
years.
Or consider these lines from Shakespeare's "As You Like It":
CELIA: I pray you, bear with me; I cannot go no further.
TOUCHSTONE:
For my part, I had rather bear with you than bear
you; yet I should bear no cross if I did bear you,
for I think you have no money in your purse.
What's funny here? Not gut-busting, but it might have made Elizabethan
audiences chuckle (or more likely groan).
grey...@mail.com
> Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> writes:
>
>
> It's easy to look at his stick figures and assume you're looking at a
> grade school student who can't draw. He's done just enough really
> beautifully rendered panels to show that the stick figures are a style
> of attention it turns out he's investing those stick figures with an
> almost unbelievable expressiveness through their postures.
>
> wonderfully-skewed worldview. I've got a framed copy of his map in the
> internet (http://xkcd.com/195/) on my office wall.
A) I don't get his humour.
B) Wiki for `Lowry'
Peter Flass
SOMEBODY's got to put the brakes on that monstrosity the Senate is
debating. They've traded so many horses that the bill contains
give-aways for everyone. Guess who would have to pay for it...
D.J.
I always saw him as more of an American Mime rather than a clown.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
Scott Lurndal
Quadibloc
> Or consider these lines from Shakespeare's "As You Like It":
> CELIA: I pray you, bear with me; I cannot go no further.
> TOUCHSTONE:
> For my part, I had rather bear with you than bear
> you; yet I should bear no cross if I did bear you,
> for I think you have no money in your purse.
>
> What's funny here? Not gut-busting, but it might have made Elizabethan
> audiences chuckle (or more likely groan).
I think this has something to do with the design on the English florin
in those days...
John Savard
Walter Bushell
D.J. <jollyc...@cableone.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:32:19 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Dec 18, 11:44�am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> >> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
> >> > lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
> >> > have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
> >> > then the laugh...
> >>
> >> Like any humor, you have to be plugged-in to the references he's making
> >> for it to be immediately funny. �Though I admit most of his stuff is
> >> quite a bit more subtle than a clown slipping on a banana peel.
> >
> >Which may or may not be funny. I have gone through about a dozen of
> >his cartoons and found one that was funny. Want to talk clowns, then
> >I vote Red Skelton. Now HE was funny...
>
> I always saw him as more of an American Mime rather than a clown.
>
> JimP.
And remember, "A mime is a terrible thing to waste."
Gene Wirchenko
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 11:03�am, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:32:35 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>>
>> <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
>> >lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
>> >have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
>> >then the laugh...
>>
>> � � �Why?
>
>The answer to every "why" question is "because".
Some of us think that there should be some words after the
"because".
>> � � �That would mean that much computer-related humour would not be
>> proper humour by your supposed standard since most people would not
>> get it without reading and rereading.
>
>When your sense of art is the same as your sense of engineering and
>science, then it is sad, IMO.
It is not. Humour can be based on things in ones environment. In
my case, that includes computers.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote in
>news:8r9ni5h1ms2t4ss76...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:32:35 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>><pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
>>>lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
>>>have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
>>>then the laugh...
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> That would mean that much computer-related humour would not be
>> proper humour by your supposed standard since most people would not
>> get it without reading and rereading.
>
>Not just computer-related humour. I would contend that all humour
Quite.
>requires context. Try looking at political cartoons from another place
Quite.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Morten Reistad
There are no black helicopters.
Dark green, that is the colour.
-- mrr
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:30:05 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 18, 11:03 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:32:35 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
> >>
> >> <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
> >> >lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
> >> >have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
> >> >then the laugh...
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> >The answer to every "why" question is "because".
>
> Some of us think that there should be some words after the
> "because".
That would be words other than "I said so".
--
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/
jmfbahciv
You need a "modern" FORTRAN standard to be able to reread.
/BAH
Charles Richmond
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:32:19 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
> <pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:44 am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Complex and esoteric comic strips aren't necessarily funny. Sorry I
>>>> lack your depth of humor as to me humor should flow simply and not
>>>> have to be read and reread so as to get the context and content and
>>>> then the laugh...
>>> Like any humor, you have to be plugged-in to the references he's making
>>> for it to be immediately funny. Though I admit most of his stuff is
>>> quite a bit more subtle than a clown slipping on a banana peel.
>> Which may or may not be funny. I have gone through about a dozen of
>> his cartoons and found one that was funny. Want to talk clowns, then
>> I vote Red Skelton. Now HE was funny...
>
> I always saw him as more of an American Mime rather than a clown.
>
Skelton did a great "stand up" segment at the beginning of his TV
shows. He did some mime, but he was much more.
Vincent Price is in an office and "buzzes" the intercom for
Skelton. Skelton immediately opens the door and walks in.
Price: "What kept you???"
Skelton: "The elevator was stuck."
Charles Richmond
> On Dec 18, 12:35 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 1:56 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, they're traitors?
>>>
>> Misguided. I haven't seen actual sabotage, yet.
>
> Have you had your head up your ass for the past year?
>
> All those running those failed financial institutions
> should be taken out and shot.
>
That sounds more like the Soviet Communists' way of dealing with
such problems. For example, if the trains are late, execute some
of the train engineers. It gets your attention, but I am *not*
sure how effective it really is.
Charles Richmond
The Republicans are the main *reason* that the bill is so
convoluted. It has to answer to several senators who have odd
ideas about how it should be done.
If the Obama Democrats were doing the bill by themselves, it would
be a much cleaner and shorter document.
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Mensanator wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 12:35 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Dec 17, 1:56 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >>
> >>> So, they're traitors?
> >>>
> >> Misguided. I haven't seen actual sabotage, yet.
> >
> > Have you had your head up your ass for the past year?
> >
> > All those running those failed financial institutions
> > should be taken out and shot.
> >
>
> That sounds more like the Soviet Communists' way of dealing with
> such problems. For example, if the trains are late, execute some
> of the train engineers. It gets your attention, but I am *not*
> sure how effective it really is.
The problem is systemantic. The coefficient of fiction is too high.
Peter Flass
It's not getting any Republican support, so what you have is all-Democrat.
Quadibloc
> Mensanator wrote:
> > All those running those failed financial institutions
> > should be taken out and shot.
>
> That sounds more like the Soviet Communists' way of dealing with
> such problems. For example, if the trains are late, execute some
> of the train engineers. It gets your attention, but I am *not*
> sure how effective it really is.
The important thing, of course, is that it is wrong. Those who have
done wickedness, those who are unrighteous, may be taken out and shot.
But taking out and shooting people who may have been doing their jobs
faithfully and well, simply because others beside them have done wrong
is evil.
In any case, in a competitive free-enterprise system, of course
businesses will respond to the lure of short-term profit, like water
seeking its own level. Who was it that made the decision that
mortgages of an unsound nature, profitable though they might be, which
once were banned, would now be allowed?
The people who acted with true freedom of choice in this matter, and
who chose to go down the wrong path, when they could have done
otherwise, were not so much bankers as legislators. Taking out the
legislators of the other political party when one is elected, and
shooting them, is dangerous for democracy - so might I suggest to the
American people that they choose the lesser remedy of not voting those
responsible back in?
Of course, to make that remedy less painful, certain reforms are
needed. Term limits are a half-measure. Instead, I would suggest
emasculating the committee system.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > If the Obama Democrats were doing the bill by themselves, it would be a
> > much cleaner and shorter document.
>
> It's not getting any Republican support, so what you have is all-Democrat.
Yes, but if the Democrats had the Senate all to themselves, any group
of 60% of the Democrats could do anything they wanted, instead of
having to satisfy *all* the members of the party in the Senate,
including the one who is against the public option, and who therefore
refuses to participate in ending a Republican filibuster unless the
public option is removed.
Remember, in the United States, individual Senators and
Representatives rise to power through being re-elected in their own
states or districts repeatedly, gaining seniority, and getting
important committee chairmanships.
It's not as if a Representative is only an unimportant backbencher
unless the President appoints him to the Cabinet.
It's not as if the House Majority Leader is the President, by
definition.
It's not as if as soon as any important legislative measure proposed
by the Administration fails to pass in the House of Representatives,
this implies that the Administration no longer enjoys the confidence
of the House, and therefore a new election must be called.
No: your Congressmen, whether Democrats or Republicans, do what they
feel like, not what the leader of their party tells them to do.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> It is not. Humour can be based on things in ones environment. In
> my case, that includes computers.
Ah, but reading funny cartoons about _computers_ can lead to the sin
of pride, because you know about computers and other people don't!
Therefore, all humor must be innocent, innocuous, and accessible to
everyone! Like the Peanuts cartoons used to be, before all that money
went to Charles Schulz' head, and he started to doubt the religious
teachings of his youth!
Or like Disney cartoons used to be, before the company yielded to
government pressure to tolerate vile perversions!
Oh, well; at least they still have Archie comics, I think. After all,
look at who they licensed their characters to some time back.
John Savard
Patrick Scheible
Term limits are a mistake. The government is big and complicated and
is likely to remain so as long as we're a continent-sized world
power. It takes several terms before legislators get a good idea how
it works. Term limits would turn them out just as they're learning
what's going on. They would be a civil-servant's dream. (Didn't
anybody else watch Yes, Prime Minister?)
> Instead, I would suggest emasculating the committee system.
I would suggest banning corporate campaign contributions and
campaigning. The legislators didn't just spontaneously weaken and
then eliminate Glass-Steagall. They did it because of continual
pressure from their campaign contributors who stood to benefit
short-term from its elimination. Corporations exist to make money,
not to have judgement about what's good for society.
-- Patrick
Charles Richmond
Is it the "coefficient of friction" or the "intertia and momentum"
that is too high???
Charles Richmond
> On Dec 19, 11:37 am, Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>
>>> All those running those failed financial institutions
>>> should be taken out and shot.
>> That sounds more like the Soviet Communists' way of dealing with
>> such problems. For example, if the trains are late, execute some
>> of the train engineers. It gets your attention, but I am *not*
>> sure how effective it really is.
>
> The important thing, of course, is that it is wrong. Those who have
> done wickedness, those who are unrighteous, may be taken out and shot.
> But taking out and shooting people who may have been doing their jobs
> faithfully and well, simply because others beside them have done wrong
> is evil.
>
> In any case, in a competitive free-enterprise system, of course
> businesses will respond to the lure of short-term profit, like water
> seeking its own level. Who was it that made the decision that
> mortgages of an unsound nature, profitable though they might be, which
> once were banned, would now be allowed?
>
While this practice was *started* in the Clinton administration,
Mr. Bush had at least *six* years to fix it and did *not*...
> The people who acted with true freedom of choice in this matter, and
> who chose to go down the wrong path, when they could have done
> otherwise, were not so much bankers as legislators. Taking out the
> legislators of the other political party when one is elected, and
> shooting them, is dangerous for democracy - so might I suggest to the
> American people that they choose the lesser remedy of not voting those
> responsible back in?
>
I think that this has already been done. Mr. Bush is *no* longer
President.
> Of course, to make that remedy less painful, certain reforms are
> needed. Term limits are a half-measure. Instead, I would suggest
> emasculating the committee system.
>
It is my contention that you would *never* have advocated
scrapping the committee system when the Republicans ran things...
"Turn about is fair play."
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> I would suggest banning corporate campaign contributions and
> campaigning. The legislators didn't just spontaneously weaken and
> then eliminate Glass-Steagall. They did it because of continual
> pressure from their campaign contributors who stood to benefit
> short-term from its elimination. Corporations exist to make money,
> not to have judgement about what's good for society.
>
I disagree with that last statement. Corporations *do* exist to
make money, but corporations *also* have a tacit obligation to do
what is good for society. I do *not* think that corporations are
ignorant of the chaos that their actions are cable of causing. I
think they *know* what is the right thing to do for society, and
that will *also* net them a tidy profit. It's the siren call of
the "easy buck" that lures them off track.
Society is the underpinning of corporate America. By destroying
society, the corporations are sawing off the limb they are sitting
on. (And eating their seed corn.)
Some way needs to be found to graphically demonstrate to
corporations that actions deleterious to society in general *will*
*not* *be* *tolerated*!!!
Charles Richmond
Yes, but *with* some Republican support, the health care bill
would *not* have to deal with some of the conservative Democrats.
That would make the bill smaller.
Charles Richmond
John, "Birds of a feather flock together." The Republicans are
still toeing the "party line", whether there is a formal published
document to indicate what that line is.
The conservative Democrats *are* causing some problems with the
health care bill. So where are the liberal (or even
"middle-of-the-road") Republicans??? There are *none*.
Charles Richmond
> On Dec 18, 9:16 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>
>> It is not. Humour can be based on things in ones environment. In
>> my case, that includes computers.
>
> Ah, but reading funny cartoons about _computers_ can lead to the sin
> of pride, because you know about computers and other people don't!
>
Yeah. Laughing at other people because those people are
*stupid*... does *not* make you or me any smarter.
> Therefore, all humor must be innocent, innocuous, and accessible to
> everyone! Like the Peanuts cartoons used to be, before all that money
> went to Charles Schulz' head, and he started to doubt the religious
> teachings of his youth!
Oh, I don't know about that. Because I identify with Charlie
Brown, I felt like the Peanuts cartoons were making fun of *me*
personally!!! ;-)
>
> Or like Disney cartoons used to be, before the company yielded to
> government pressure to tolerate vile perversions!
>
Do you mean prior to WWII??? Because Disney and Warner Brothers
produced propaganda cartoons for WWII, See the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuhrer%27s_Face
It uses the Spike Jones' song:
When der fuehrer says we is de master race
We heil (pffft) heil (pffft) right in Der Fuehrer's Face
Not to love der fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we heil (pffft) heil (pffft) right in Der Fuehrer's Face
And how about the Porky Pig "Pledge of Allegiance" cartoon from
1939???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Glory_(1939_film)
> Oh, well; at least they still have Archie comics, I think. After all,
> look at who they licensed their characters to some time back.
>
When I was a kid, we had Archie comics. But there were also *war*
comics with stories of soldiers and such. And of course the "super
hero" comics and fantastic stories Sci-Fi. We also had the "Little
Lulu" comic books.
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > Or like Disney cartoons used to be, before the company yielded to
> > government pressure to tolerate vile perversions!
>
> Do you mean prior to WWII???
No, I mean prior to Disneyland giving recognition to same-sex couples,
equivalent to that given to married couples, of which their employees
were a part. Surely you must remember that news item, and the reaction
to it by certain extreme religious right groups?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> John, "Birds of a feather flock together." The Republicans are
> still toeing the "party line", whether there is a formal published
> document to indicate what that line is.
>
> The conservative Democrats *are* causing some problems with the
> health care bill. So where are the liberal (or even
> "middle-of-the-road") Republicans??? There are *none*.
The Republican party is hardly unified, even if they're all to the
right of even the most conservative Democrats.
One wing inclines to the Libertarian, even if they also tend to
glorify military power in ways that are in error, at least as Ron Paul
would tell them. The other wing thinks that Mike Huckabee and Sarah
Palin would make good candidates for President.
John Savard
Peter Flass
McCain-Feingold tried to do this, and it didn't work. Additionally,
you'd have to ban campaign spending by unions, by partners in top law
firms, and by top executives of companies who give as a group.
jmfbahciv
/BAH
jmfbahciv
They got majority power 3 years ago and White House last year. They
still can't get anything "done" which is contrary to what this
newsgroups' Democrat adorers declared. If anybody bothered to notice,
the Democrat leadership refused all Republican participation. That
means that all the people those Republicans represent had no
representation. Kinda unconstitutional...don'tcha think?
/BAH
Patrick Scheible
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
> >
> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > I would suggest banning corporate campaign contributions and
> > campaigning. The legislators didn't just spontaneously weaken and
> > then eliminate Glass-Steagall. They did it because of continual
> > pressure from their campaign contributors who stood to benefit
> > short-term from its elimination. Corporations exist to make money,
> > not to have judgement about what's good for society.
> >
>
> I disagree with that last statement. Corporations *do* exist to
> make money, but corporations *also* have a tacit obligation to do
> what is good for society.
I don't agree. Corporate executives have a duty to their stockholders
to value their stock price and dividends above all things. If the
executives don't do that duty, the stockholders can sue them.
Stockholder suits have been won before.
That is why we should have low expectations of corporations doing the
Right Thing just because it's the Right Thing. Motivate them with
money, either positively or negatively, and don't give them a role in
government.
-- Patrick
Quadibloc
> Charles Richmond <friz...@tx.rr.com> writes:
> > I disagree with that last statement. Corporations *do* exist to
> > make money, but corporations *also* have a tacit obligation to do
> > what is good for society.
>
> I don't agree. Corporate executives have a duty to their stockholders
> to value their stock price and dividends above all things. If the
> executives don't do that duty, the stockholders can sue them.
> Stockholder suits have been won before.
Precisely. Which is why their behavior has to be constrained by laws,
because the market cannot do that job.
John Savard
Quadibloc
>That
> means that all the people those Republicans represent had no
> representation. Kinda unconstitutional...don'tcha think?
No, the people who voted Republican had representation. There weren't
enough of them to make Republicans the majority, though. They are not
unrepresented, they are outvoted.
In any case, I don't think that everyone who voted for a Republican
Senator opposes Obama's health care program. It isn't voters who are
being represented here, it's insurance companies.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > If the Obama Democrats were doing the bill by themselves, it would be a
> > much cleaner and shorter document.
>
> And will bankrupt the country in two years.
This is why every other industrialized nation in the world is
bankrupt? They've had national health care plans that don't involve
insurance companies at all for longer than that.
John Savard
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <hgj6i6$rs4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mensanator wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 12:35 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 17, 1:56 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >> >>
> >>>>> So, they're traitors?
> >> >>>
> >>>> Misguided. I haven't seen actual sabotage, yet.
> >>> Have you had your head up your ass for the past year?
> >>>
> >>> All those running those failed financial institutions
> >>> should be taken out and shot.
> >>>
> >> That sounds more like the Soviet Communists' way of dealing with
> >> such problems. For example, if the trains are late, execute some
> >> of the train engineers. It gets your attention, but I am *not*
> >> sure how effective it really is.
> >
> > The problem is systemantic. The coefficient of fiction is too high.
> >
>
> Is it the "coefficient of friction" or the "intertia and momentum"
> that is too high???
coefficient of *fiction* which is defined as (Reality rejected by
system)/(Reality presented to system.) Concept further explained in
_Systemantics_ by John Gall.
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> > businesses will respond to the lure of short-term profit, like water
> > seeking its own level. Who was it that made the decision that
> > mortgages of an unsound nature, profitable though they might be, which
> > once were banned, would now be allowed?
> >
>
> While this practice was *started* in the Clinton administration,
> Mr. Bush had at least *six* years to fix it and did *not*...
While all the time the signs of oncoming disaster were increasing.
Anyone outside the system could have seen it coming.
Mensanator
As if anyone has ever been detered by laws.
The laws need to have teeth and they need to be enforced.
Morten Reistad
It was Otto von Bismarck who started it. And they DID go bankrupt,
twice. But the cause was probably not the expenses for health
or culture.
-- mrr
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> Do you mean prior to WWII??? Because Disney and Warner Brothers
> produced propaganda cartoons for WWII, See the following:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuhrer%27s_Face
Not to mention such Popeye gems as "You're a Sap, Mr. Jap":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-62533683921304024231#
Politically Incorrect by today's standards, of course...
--
/~\ 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!
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> Mensanator wrote:
>
>> On Dec 18, 12:35 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 17, 1:56 pm, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>
>>>> So, they're traitors?
>>>
>>>
>>> Misguided. I haven't seen actual sabotage, yet.
>>
>> Have you had your head up your ass for the past year?
>>
>> All those running those failed financial institutions
>> should be taken out and shot.
>
> That sounds more like the Soviet Communists' way of dealing with
> such problems. For example, if the trains are late, execute some
> of the train engineers. It gets your attention, but I am *not*
> sure how effective it really is.
Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev were riding on a train. Partway
through the journey, the train lurched to a stop. Stalin said,
"I'll take care of this," and went up to the locomotive and shot
the crew. He returned to his seat and sat down. After half an
hour the train still hadn't started up again. Khrushchev went
up to the locomotive, coaxed the surviving crew out of hiding,
and persuaded them to try to make repairs. Shortly after he
returned to his seat, the train started moving again, but broke
down once more after a few minutes. Brezhnev reached over, pulled
down the window blind, and said, "Now. Train is moving."
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> Some way needs to be found to graphically demonstrate to
> corporations that actions deleterious to society in general
> *will* *not* *be* *tolerated*!!!
Good luck. The general public is just as short-sighted as
corporations are. They're also easily manipulated. The
same goes for politicians.
I agree that such a solution is needed, but I have no idea what
form it might take. Government regulation sounds like the only
effective measure, but I think we've all seen where that road
leads...
jmfbahciv
> On Dec 20, 7:57 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>
>>> If the Obama Democrats were doing the bill by themselves, it would be a
>>> much cleaner and shorter document.
>> And will bankrupt the country in two years.
>
> This is why every other industrialized nation in the world is
> bankrupt?
they don't have a similar governing as we do. The closest
is the EU now and their agreements favor the EU over the
member states (which is opposite our Constitution). And those
that have national health insurance have, and had, budget problems.
> They've had national health care plans that don't involve
> insurance companies at all for longer than that.
>
Now that the entire Western world has nationalized health
care, things will get worse quickly. Where will people
go to get themselves fixed? Cuba, Mexico, and the orient
is my guess. The Canadians who went to the US will skip
it and go further south.
Nobody knows how this all will be funded, including the
Democrat Senators who keep claiming that the bill is
"paid for". No, it's not.
/BAH
Quadibloc
I am sorry that I was unclear. I assumed that if a law is passed, it
is intended to be obeyed, so _of course_ it will have teeth and be
enforced. To whatever extent may be necessary to ensure absolute
compliance.
John Savard
Dave Garland
> I assumed that if a law is passed, it
> is intended to be obeyed, so _of course_ it will have teeth and be
> enforced. To whatever extent may be necessary to ensure absolute
> compliance.
Aside from laws that are passed merely to score a political point, the
sad truth is that laws regulating "respectable" business rarely have
much in the way of teeth. Those businesses are run by people who are
the pillars of their community, and friends of the lawmakers,
prosecutors, and judges. The penalty for a business wrongfully
pocketing, say $100000 is likely to be a small fine (in the rare case
of there being any penalty at all) whereas an individual who
wrongfully pockets the same amount will probably do serious prison
time. The thought of giving "prison" time to a corporation (e.g. by
freezing its accounts and padlocking its doors for the duration) is
unthinkable and the same goes for corporate brass (leaving aside an
occasional conviction where the moral lapses are not only appalling
but involve multiple deaths).
For example, the case in 2005 when Sony BMG distributed millions of
CDs that installed malware on computers (any software you didn't ask
or give permission for is malware), likely violating computer crime
laws. And to top it off, the malware violated copyright of some GNU
software. ("Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is,
so why should they care about it?" - Thomas Hesse, President of Sony
BMG Global Digital Business)
Dave
Charlie Gibbs
<951d2895-1407-457b...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca (Quadibloc) writes:
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Patrick Scheible
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 7:57 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
> >> Charles Richmond wrote:
> >
> >>> If the Obama Democrats were doing the bill by themselves, it would be a
> >>> much cleaner and shorter document.
> >> And will bankrupt the country in two years.
> >
> > This is why every other industrialized nation in the world is
> > bankrupt?
>
> they don't have a similar governing as we do. The closest
> is the EU now and their agreements favor the EU over the
> member states (which is opposite our Constitution). And those
> that have national health insurance have, and had, budget problems.
>
> > They've had national health care plans that don't involve
> > insurance companies at all for longer than that.
> >
> Now that the entire Western world has nationalized health
> care, things will get worse quickly. Where will people
> go to get themselves fixed? Cuba, Mexico, and the orient
> is my guess. The Canadians who went to the US will skip
> it and go further south.
Nonsense. The health care bill doesn't prevent patients from getting
care their insurance doesn't pay for and paying for it out of pocket.
Beverley Hills plastic surgeons will still be in business.
-- Patrick
Walter Bushell
<951d2895-1407-457b...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
It ain't necessarily so. Examples, laws passed so that the police can
pick up any driver they want. If you break a traffic law, the police can
stop you. If you don't, well then, "Nobody drives like that; we better
investigate."
Charles Richmond
The Republicans do *not* want to "participate". The Republicans
just want to knock down *anything* that the Democrats try to do.
The Republicans are obstructionists.
The new health care reform should *save* money in a year or two,
and *not* be more expensive. Saving money includes preventing some
diseases from getting so bad and costing so much more to treat.
Charles Richmond
So change the laws so that the corporations *do* have an
*explicit* duty to do what is right for society as well as make
money. These laws can encourage corporations by manipulating taxes
and monetary rewards and penalties.
Charles Richmond
Everyone who voted for a Republican needs to "wake up and smell
the coffee". Voting for Republicans *is* voting against health
reform and many other programs favored by the Democrats. Surely
the voters can see how anti-anything-Democrat that the Republicans
are. After all, there is such a thing as a "conservative Democrat".
Charles Richmond
> In article <hgkoql$sn3$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> businesses will respond to the lure of short-term profit, like water
>>> seeking its own level. Who was it that made the decision that
>>> mortgages of an unsound nature, profitable though they might be, which
>>> once were banned, would now be allowed?
>>>
>> While this practice was *started* in the Clinton administration,
>> Mr. Bush had at least *six* years to fix it and did *not*...
>
> While all the time the signs of oncoming disaster were increasing.
> Anyone outside the system could have seen it coming.
>
It is hard to think that Bush and the Republicans did *not* see
all this coming. The real question is why the Republicans did
*not* do more to head off all this unpleasantness.