_virus_ noch einmal, and _octopus_ [was Re: Helvetica font]
Rich Alderson
Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
> This is also why forms like 'virii' and 'octopi' are incorrect: in the
> original Latin, 'virus' is a fourth declension noun that does not have a
> plural form; if it had one, it would be 'virus'; and in the original
> Greek, the plural of 'octopus' is 'octopodes.' The 'virii' and 'octopi'
> forms are used mainly by people who have picked up a little bit of
> Latin and want to sound impressively educated, and the effect is exactly
> the opposite.
I believe that _virus_ is actually a *second* declension neuter in -s, rather
than a fourth. The ablative is _viro_, not _viru_, isn't it?
(If you look for old postings by me on the subject of "virus", at one point I
dug up everything I could find on the topic.)
As for "octopi", that's doubly ignorant, since "octopus" is a Latinization of
the Greek _oktopous_ "eight-foot", plural _oktopodes_, and not a Latin second
declension noun at all.
--
Rich Alderson "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."
ne...@alderson.users.panix.com --Death, of the Endless
Morten Reistad
Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>Note followups.
>
>Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>
>> This is also why forms like 'virii' and 'octopi' are incorrect: in the
>> original Latin, 'virus' is a fourth declension noun that does not have a
>> plural form; if it had one, it would be 'virus'; and in the original
>> Greek, the plural of 'octopus' is 'octopodes.' The 'virii' and 'octopi'
>> forms are used mainly by people who have picked up a little bit of
>> Latin and want to sound impressively educated, and the effect is exactly
>> the opposite.
>
>I believe that _virus_ is actually a *second* declension neuter in -s, rather
>than a fourth. The ablative is _viro_, not _viru_, isn't it?
>
>(If you look for old postings by me on the subject of "virus", at one point I
> dug up everything I could find on the topic.)
>
>As for "octopi", that's doubly ignorant, since "octopus" is a Latinization of
>the Greek _oktopous_ "eight-foot", plural _oktopodes_, and not a Latin second
>declension noun at all.
Oktapous is a neuter, (To Oktapous), with plural oktapodes, pl gen oktapodos.
No oktapi. That would place it as a masculine, attic 2nd declension dative,
which is just plain wrong. %Syntax error.
And it should really be a "Pentapous". In modern greek they call it
Htapothi.
So you shouldn't be ashamed to normalised the word as a full blown
English word; the age is probably closer to a millennium than
a century. (although this is one of those words which are remarkably
rare in ancient literature). Should pass muster even in this
news group.
Use "octopuses".
-- mrr
Charles Richmond
Latin is a dead language
As you can plainly see
It killed off all the Romans
And now it's killing me...
(Note to the humor impaired: this is just a *joke*... ;-)
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
John W Kennedy
> Note followups.
>
> Charlton Wilbur<cwi...@chromatico.net> writes:
>
>> This is also why forms like 'virii' and 'octopi' are incorrect: in the
>> original Latin, 'virus' is a fourth declension noun that does not have a
>> plural form; if it had one, it would be 'virus'; and in the original
>> Greek, the plural of 'octopus' is 'octopodes.' The 'virii' and 'octopi'
>> forms are used mainly by people who have picked up a little bit of
>> Latin and want to sound impressively educated, and the effect is exactly
>> the opposite.
>
> I believe that _virus_ is actually a *second* declension neuter in -s, rather
> than a fourth. The ablative is _viro_, not _viru_, isn't it?
Yes. And there are only about five such words (2nd declension neuter in
-us), and all of them are mass nouns with no plural. (Some late
grammarians assign "virus" to the fourth declension, but it is generally
agreed that they are simply wrong.) The only correct plural of "virus"
in English is "viruses".
> (If you look for old postings by me on the subject of "virus", at one point I
> dug up everything I could find on the topic.)
> As for "octopi", that's doubly ignorant, since "octopus" is a Latinization of
> the Greek _oktopous_ "eight-foot", plural _oktopodes_, and not a Latin second
> declension noun at all.
It is a Latinization of ὀκτάπους, but that does not make it not-Latin.
However, all authorities, whether or not they accept "octopi" or
"octopodes", prefer "octopuses".
Charlton Wilbur
RA> Note followups. Charlton Wilbur <cwi...@chromatico.net>
RA> writes:
>> This is also why forms like 'virii' and 'octopi' are incorrect:
>> in the original Latin, 'virus' is a fourth declension noun that
>> does not have a plural form; if it had one, it would be 'virus';
>> and in the original Greek, the plural of 'octopus' is
>> 'octopodes.' The 'virii' and 'octopi' forms are used mainly by
>> people who have picked up a little bit of Latin and want to sound
>> impressively educated, and the effect is exactly the opposite.
RA> I believe that _virus_ is actually a *second* declension neuter
RA> in -s, rather than a fourth. The ablative is _viro_, not
RA> _viru_, isn't it?
The second declension word vir means 'man' (in the "male person"
sense).
(I am aware that some pedagogical traditions number the declensions
differently; my fourth declension is the cantus, gradus one.)
RA> As for "octopi", that's doubly ignorant, since "octopus" is a
RA> Latinization of the Greek _oktopous_ "eight-foot", plural
RA> _oktopodes_, and not a Latin second declension noun at all.
Yes, that was my point -- but it ends in -us, so *obviously* (at least
to some) it must be a Latin word that forms its plural in -i.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
John W Kennedy
> The second declension word vir means 'man' (in the "male person"
> sense).
Nevertheless, "virus" is a second-declension neuter noun in "-us", one
of a handful of such freak words.
Joachim Pense
>
> Yes. And there are only about five such words (2nd declension neuter in
> -us), and all of them are mass nouns with no plural.
Just curious: What are the other four?
Joachim
Alun
news:mdd63husq...@panix5.panix.com...
> I believe that _virus_ is actually a *second* declension neuter in -s,
> rather
> than a fourth. The ablative is _viro_, not _viru_, isn't it?
>
Talking of ablatives, the exclamation, "By Jove!" is gilding
the lily, because "Jove" by itself is the ablative form, already
meaning, "By Jove".
I suppose much the same as a multimeter being used
for measuring AC current!
Alun
news:gqk2ie$7hh$2...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> Latin is a dead language
> As you can plainly see
> It killed off all the Romans
> And now it's killing me...
>
Otherwise,
Latin is a language,
As dead as dead can be.
It killed the ancient Romans
And now it's killing me!
Morten Reistad
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>> In article <mdd63husq...@panix5.panix.com>,
>> Rich Alderson <ne...@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>>> Note followups.
>>>
>>> the Greek _oktopous_ "eight-foot", plural _oktopodes_, and not a Latin second
>>> declension noun at all.
>>
>> Oktapous is a neuter, (To Oktapous), with plural oktapodes, pl gen oktapodos.
>>
>> No oktapi. That would place it as a masculine, attic 2nd declension dative,
>> which is just plain wrong. %Syntax error.
>>
>> And it should really be a "Pentapous". In modern greek they call it
>> Htapothi.
>>
>> So you shouldn't be ashamed to normalised the word as a full blown
>> English word; the age is probably closer to a millennium than
>> a century. (although this is one of those words which are remarkably
>> rare in ancient literature). Should pass muster even in this
>> news group.
>>
>> Use "octopuses".
>>
>
>Latin is a dead language
>As you can plainly see
>It killed off all the Romans
>And now it's killing me...
But this was not about Latin. This is about Greek. And Greek is
alive and kicking. Modern Greek is somewhat different, but
recognisably the same language as the language Homer and
Platon wrote in. The largest change happened between the Greek
spoken in the Replublic and the Greek from the New Testament.
But we lost the word for the colour "red" from ancient
Greek.
-- mrr
Charlton Wilbur
JWK> On 3/28/09 12:41 AM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> The second declension word vir means 'man' (in the "male person"
>> sense).
JWK> Nevertheless, "virus" is a second-declension neuter noun in
JWK> "-us", one of a handful of such freak words.
You can provide a citation for this? And possibly an explanation of
how it was distinguished from vir in forms other than the singular
nominative?
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
That is precisely the variant I found carved into a desk <mumble>
years ago.
--
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/
CBFalconer
> "Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> Latin is a language,
>> As dead as dead can be.
>> It killed the ancient Romans
>> And now it's killing me!
>
> That is precisely the variant I found carved into a desk <mumble>
> years ago.
Carving school desks to leave appropriate permanent markers seems
to be a dying tradition. It is much harder on plastic desks. And
I have the impression that teachers frown on visible jackknives.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Charles Richmond
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> "Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>> Latin is a language,
>>> As dead as dead can be.
>>> It killed the ancient Romans
>>> And now it's killing me!
>> That is precisely the variant I found carved into a desk <mumble>
>> years ago.
>
> Carving school desks to leave appropriate permanent markers seems
> to be a dying tradition. It is much harder on plastic desks. And
> I have the impression that teachers frown on visible jackknives.
>
When I went to elementary school, if you were caught with
a "pocket knife", the principal would take it away and give
it back to you at the end of the year.
Today, I would probably be charged with carrying a deadly weapon,
and either sent to "reform school" or to an "alternative school".
Heck, today if you even *draw* pictures of knives, you can be
sent to an "alternative school".
Charles Richmond
> On 3/27/09 3:31 PM, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>
>
>> As for "octopi", that's doubly ignorant, since "octopus" is a
>> Latinization of
>> the Greek _oktopous_ "eight-foot", plural _oktopodes_, and not a Latin
>> second
>> declension noun at all.
>
> It is a Latinization of ὀκτάπους, but that does not make it not-Latin.
> However, all authorities, whether or not they accept "octopi" or
> "octopodes", prefer "octopuses".
And we must *all* remember that "Octopussy" was a James Bond
movie... ISTM that Ian Fleming had a different etymology
for the name of that movie. ;-)
John W Kennedy
>>>>>> "JWK" == John W Kennedy<jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
> JWK> On 3/28/09 12:41 AM, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
> >> The second declension word vir means 'man' (in the "male person"
> >> sense).
>
> JWK> Nevertheless, "virus" is a second-declension neuter noun in
> JWK> "-us", one of a handful of such freak words.
>
> You can provide a citation for this?
Any Latin dictionary or Latin grammar worth mentioning.
> And possibly an explanation of
> how it was distinguished from vir in forms other than the singular
> nominative?
The same way "cleave" and "cleave" are distinguished in English, I
suppose. Or the way most ablatives are distinguished from datives.
jmfbahciv
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> "Charles Richmond" <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>> Latin is a language,
>>>> As dead as dead can be.
>>>> It killed the ancient Romans
>>>> And now it's killing me!
>>> That is precisely the variant I found carved into a desk <mumble>
>>> years ago.
>>
>> Carving school desks to leave appropriate permanent markers seems
>> to be a dying tradition. It is much harder on plastic desks. And
>> I have the impression that teachers frown on visible jackknives.
>>
>
> When I went to elementary school, if you were caught with
> a "pocket knife", the principal would take it away and give
> it back to you at the end of the year.
My Dad has told me that the principal would take away his gun and
give it back to him at the end of the day. Then he would shoot
dinner on the way home after high school.
<snip>
/BAH
Mensanator
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> >> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
> >> ... snip ...
> >>>> Latin is a language,
> >>>> As dead as dead can be.
> >>>> It killed the ancient Romans
> >>>> And now it's killing me!
> >>> That is precisely the variant I found carved into a desk <mumble>
> >>> years ago.
>
> >> Carving school desks to leave appropriate permanent markers seems
> >> to be a dying tradition. �It is much harder on plastic desks. �And
> >> I have the impression that teachers frown on visible jackknives.
>
> > When I went to elementary school, if you were caught with
> > a "pocket knife", the principal would take it away and give
> > it back to you at the end of the year.
>
> My Dad has told me that the principal would take away his gun and
> give it back to him at the end of the day. �Then he would shoot
> dinner on the way home after high school.
Still, I bet he didn't take any shit from classmates.
>
> <snip>
>
> /BAH
Alun
news:7645f4cc-1b80-4951...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> Still, I bet he didn't take any shit from classmates.
Yes, it's only in recent years that cannabis has been
freely on sale in schools.
jmfbahciv
to run the trap line, too. So that was more gear that kids carried.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the midwest,
you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time when hemp
was a cash crop.
/BAH
Mensanator
> Alun wrote:
> > "Mensanator" <mensana...@aol.com> wrote in message
When did it stop becoming a cash crop?
>
> /BAH
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
CBFalconer
> Alun wrote:
>> "Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Still, I bet he didn't take any shit from classmates.
>>
>> Yes, it's only in recent years that cannabis has been
>> freely on sale in schools.
>
> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
> be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the midwest,
> you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time when hemp
> was a cash crop.
Hemp is amazingly adaptable. It seems to have altered its
preferred milieu from midwestern fields to isolated patches in
Maine forests over the years. Although I have also seen it in
fenced in cabbage patches about 25 years ago.
Morten Reistad
When Congress banned it in 1936. Conspiracy theorists have lots
of web sites on that one.
-- mrr
jmfbahciv
Not one that can be taxed and generate wealth.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
Some day I'll stumble over some arcane history book which will
explain what they were thinking back then.
/BAH
CBFalconer
> Mensanator wrote:
>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
>>> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
>>> be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the
>>> midwest, you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time
>>> when hemp was a cash crop.
>>
>> When did it stop becoming a cash crop?
>
> When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
> manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
I don't think you can. I don't believe you existed.
jmfbahciv
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>
> ... snip ...
>>>> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
>>>> be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the
>>>> midwest, you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time
>>>> when hemp was a cash crop.
>>> When did it stop becoming a cash crop?
>> When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
>> manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
>
> I don't think you can. I don't believe you existed.
>
to remember when it happened. I do know how to read.
/BAH
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
and it generates direct wealth for some.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>
> ... snip ...
>>>> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
>>>> be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the
>>>> midwest, you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time
>>>> when hemp was a cash crop.
>>> When did it stop becoming a cash crop?
>> When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
>> manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
>
> I don't think you can. I don't believe you existed.
>
Good for making paper, various fabrics, et.c.
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> I have read that hemp has good industrial fiber.
> Good for making paper, various fabrics, et.c.
Until nylon was invented ropes were made out of hemp fibre.
Andrew Swallow
William C Waterhouse
...
>
> You can provide a citation for this? And possibly an explanation of
> how it was distinguished from vir in forms other than the singular
> nominative?
>
> Charlton
>
>
In speech and verse, it is distinguished by having a long i.
William C. Waterhouse
Penn State
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> I have read that hemp has good industrial fiber.
> Good for making paper, various fabrics, et.c.
baling twine ... straw, alfalfa, etc
quicky search engine ... some listed here
https://www.reconstructinghistory.com/rope.php?c=126&w=24&r=Y
this tries to mention more uses than duct tape
http://www.equisearch.com/horses_care/farm_ranch/management/balingtwine030703/
a history of hay balers & baling twine
http://www.bridoncordage.com/history_twine.htm
above mention that there was some baling with wire, i handled some bales
with wire (instead of twine) ... which did require gloves ... you could
somewhat get by w/o gloves with twine. above is vendor of brailian sisal
baling twine (describing it much better than hemp).
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> Alun wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mensanator" <mensa...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7645f4cc-1b80-4951...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Still, I bet he didn't take any shit from classmates.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's only in recent years that cannabis has been
>>>> freely on sale in schools.
>>>
>>> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
>>> be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the midwest,
>>> you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time when hemp
>>> was a cash crop.
>>
>> You mean that it's not a cash crop any more?
>
> Not one that can be taxed and generate wealth.
Oh, it generates wealth - just for the wrong people. As far as
I can tell, the only difference between marijuana and alcohol or
tobacco (both of which are far more addictive) is that the government
isn't making any money from it. Legalization sounds like a natural,
but there are power issues involved - plus the fact that any politician
who seriously proposed legalization would probably have his life
insurance company scrambling to cancel his policy before the drug
cartels get to him.
--
/~\ 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!
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
... snip ...
>>
>>> When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
>>> manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
>>
>> I don't think you can. I don't believe you existed.
>
> I don't have to have lived at the time an event occurred in order
> to remember when it happened. I do know how to read.
I think you do. You have a memory of reading something of unknown
authenticity. I have a vivid memory, at the age of 5, of watching
Congress shut down the rope manufacturing biz. I remember the
stentorian tone of certain Congress critters. :-)
CBFalconer
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> ...
>
>> You can provide a citation for this? And possibly an explanation
>> of how it was distinguished from vir in forms other than the
>> singular nominative?
>
What is 'it'? What is 'this'?
jmfbahciv
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>
> ... snip ...
>>>> When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
>>>> manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
>>> I don't think you can. I don't believe you existed.
>> I don't have to have lived at the time an event occurred in order
>> to remember when it happened. I do know how to read.
>
> I think you do. You have a memory of reading something of unknown
> authenticity.
Sigh! So you are stating that my comment was not true?
>I have a vivid memory, at the age of 5, of watching
> Congress shut down the rope manufacturing biz. I remember the
> stentorian tone of certain Congress critters. :-)
>
and then you verify that my comment was true.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
No, it doesn't. Wealth is not an individual's increase in
temporary cash.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
/BAH
jmfbahciv
/BAH
jmfbahciv
No. that's not wealth. Wealth is a n-derivative, not a single
derivative. There isn't much industry involved in
growing and then smoking the hemp and it doesn't generate side
businesses. thus, it does not generate wealth.
/BAH
Mensanator
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj wrote:
>
> >>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> >>>> Alun wrote:
>
> >>>>>news:7645f4cc-1b80-4951...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>>>> Still, I bet he didn't take any shit from classmates.
> >>>>> Yes, it's only in recent years that cannabis has been
> >>>>> freely on sale in schools.
> >>>> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
> >>>> be made. Â If you notice the weeds along the roads in the midwest,
> >>>> you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time when hemp
> >>>> was a cash crop.
> >>> You mean that it's not a cash crop any more?
> >> Not one that can be taxed and generate wealth.
>
> > Oh, it generates wealth - just for the wrong people. Â As far as
> > I can tell, the only difference between marijuana and alcohol or
> > tobacco (both of which are far more addictive) is that the government
> > isn't making any money from it. Â Legalization sounds like a natural,
> > but there are power issues involved - plus the fact that any politician
> > who seriously proposed legalization would probably have his life
> > insurance company scrambling to cancel his policy before the drug
> > cartels get to him.
>
> No. that's not wealth. Â Wealth is a n-derivative, not a single
> derivative. Â There isn't much industry involved in
> growing and then smoking the hemp and it doesn't generate side
> businesses. Â thus, it does not generate wealth.
But doesn't growing then selling it generate wealth?
>
> /BAH
Morten Reistad
CBFalconer <cbfal...@maineline.net> wrote:
>jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>>
>... snip ...
>>>
>>>> In those days, you made money by selling hemp so ropes could
>>>> be made. If you notice the weeds along the roads in the
>>>> midwest, you'll see hemp which are descendants from the time
>>>> when hemp was a cash crop.
>>>
>>> When did it stop becoming a cash crop?
>>
>> When Congress, in their infinite stupidity, shut down the rope
>> manufacturing biz. I don't remember the year.
>
>I don't think you can. I don't believe you existed.
The year was 1936.
Under the early FDR programs the federal government got in
control of unbelieavably large areas of forest, and they
were now accessible since roads were built for public
funds. There was so much wood that the difference had to
go to all kinds of secondary products were hemp
was really a more suitable raw material. Paper,
packaging, etc.
You could trust Congress to figure out what to do.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad
Until they made nylon with the correct properties all
shipping depended on hemp, for ropes, sails, fenders,
sacks and packaging etc.
Such nylon was a WW2 invention, and was scarce until
the early 1950s, when prices finally dropped. This
again made containerisation possible in the 1960s.
-- mrr
Morten Reistad
Dacron for "normal" ropes, which is a sort of nylon with
low stretch and high energy absorbation when stretching.
Rope making is an industry. Ropes are very different. They
can have 30% stretch up to 20% of breaking point, like
the lines climbers use for safety; so they will get
a soft landing in the rope when the fall; to the
kevlar ropes used to hoist sails where stretch is
measured in ppm, These ropes are stronger than steel
wires of the same diameter.
Energy absorbtion is also radically different, from a
climbers rope where energy is retained, giving a
distinct bounce, to ships where the hawsers need to
absorb a lot of energy. Ideally you have higher
absorbtion on the spring (laterally with the ship)
than on the brests (normal to the ship in front and
rear), where you want a little bit of elasticity.
-- mrr
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
What is it, that the temporary cash can't make permanent?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
The Hemp plant supposedly is a good source of fiber not only
for ropes and twine, but also for paper and weaving fiber.
So it could replace logging of white pine for paper, as well
as be used for some textiles.
I don't know if it's oily enough to be used that way.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
is beneficial leading to definitely improved products.
--
Rostyk
Morten Reistad
It is only in the USA that hemp is illegal.
I own several hemp garments. They are very strong, but not
as abrasive as linen. They keep warmer than other garments
except wool. A century ago it was custom to add 10-20% hemp
in wollen garments so they kept their shape, just as we use
nylon for the same purpose today.
I have used hemp paper. It does not absorb water as linen
or pulp paper does, so fountain pens and inkjets are unusable;
but ball point, pencils and laserjets work very well. It holds
up quite well in wet conditions, and can even be used underwater.
Hemp ropes are well known, and the shipping industry was utterly
dependent on them until half a century ago.
New evidence show that the Romans even had spinnaker sails
made out of hemp. We thought spinnakers were an early 19th
century invention. Like concrete.
-- mrr
jmfbahciv
Not really. It doesn't generate offshoots.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
I was wondering if abolishing the rope business was a ploy
to stay out of the war.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
and, I suppose, the twists of the rope fibers. I know
this is an area where I don't know what I don't know.
Nail shapes and tools are another.
/BAH
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Sure it does there's a pretty large industry making and selling
assorted paraphenalia to marijuana smokers.
--
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/
Dave Garland
> Sure it does there's a pretty large industry making and selling
> assorted paraphenalia to marijuana smokers.
And munchies. Don't forget the munchies.
Dave
Morten Reistad
How a rope is constructed makes a lot of the properties
of the finished line.
You also apply, or don't, relevant knots for
the relevant lines. You do not put a bowline knot
on elastic line, e.g.
-- mrr
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> New evidence show that the Romans even had spinnaker sails
> made out of hemp. We thought spinnakers were an early 19th
> century invention. Like concrete.
The Romans had concrete.
Ed Cryer
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49D6C136...@yahoo.com...
> Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> New evidence show that the Romans even had spinnaker sails
>> made out of hemp. We thought spinnakers were an early 19th
>> century invention. Like concrete.
>
> The Romans had concrete.
>
Good underwater concrete too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete
Ed
Morten Reistad
CBFalconer <cbfal...@maineline.net> wrote:
>Morten Reistad wrote:
>>
>... snip ...
>>
>> New evidence show that the Romans even had spinnaker sails
>> made out of hemp. We thought spinnakers were an early 19th
>> century invention. Like concrete.
>
>The Romans had concrete.
Yep. But we didn't know the materials Pantheon is built
from is concrete before around 20 years after we re-invented
the stuff ourselves.
With spinnaker sails it took almost two centuries before we
found out.
-- mrr
Ed Cryer
"Morten Reistad" <fi...@last.name> wrote in message
news:pec7rg....@eden.reistad.name...
Nice points, yes.
Right then, here's one that's befuddled engineers for centuries? How did
the Romans manage to flood the arena in the Colosseum and stage
sea-battles on it? And keep in mind that warren of passages and rooms
underneath it.
Ed
jmfbahciv
a single derivative biz.
/BAH
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> writes:
> Sure it does there's a pretty large industry making and selling
> assorted paraphenalia to marijuana smokers.
i remember tower records on bascom (across from pruneyard) in the 70s,
three sections were vinyl, tapes, and a head shop (black light posters
and various paraphenalia in the case at the check-out counter).
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar70
Morten Reistad
perhaps they had invented roca-gil?
-- mrr
TrailingEdgeTechnologies
> In article <49D2B8FB.B90D1...@yahoo.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Change date to 1937: the Marihuana Tax Act (note
spelling, which is still used in Federal law), which
used overprinted revenue stamps to collect tax
on both professional and recreational use of
marijuana. There was a pullback during World
War II, when "Hemp for Victory" became the
mode, and $1/year tax stamps were available
to farmers growing the hemp for cordage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Producer_of_marihuana.jpg
To bring it back to a.f.c., I wonder what piece
of unit record equipment was used to print
the serial number and name and address on
that stamp.
Bruce B. Reynolds, Trailing Edge Technologies, Glenside PA
Ed Cryer
Is that anything to do with tightrope-walking elephants?
Ed
Quadibloc
> No. that's not wealth. Â Wealth is a n-derivative, not a single
> derivative. Â There isn't much industry involved in
> growing and then smoking the hemp and it doesn't generate side
> businesses. Â thus, it does not generate wealth.
It depends on what definition of "wealth" you use.
Producing anything people are willing to pay for, even if it's
illegal, produces wealth in the sense that economists use the term.
It can indeed be said that producing drugs - like producing tobacco
and alcohol, like producing pornography, like producing even
entertainments of an idle and trashy kind, does not truly add to the
real wealth of a nation. However, since currently the economists'
definition is the default one, to avoid a needless argument, you have
to begin by explaining the definition you're using.
John Savard
jmfbahciv
> On Apr 2, 6:12 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>
>> No. that's not wealth. Wealth is a n-derivative, not a single
>> derivative. There isn't much industry involved in
>> growing and then smoking the hemp and it doesn't generate side
>> businesses. thus, it does not generate wealth.
>
> It depends on what definition of "wealth" you use.
Yea. I've been trying to think of a sentence that would explain
it but have failed. I'm thinking of it in terms of long-term
rather than short-term where the initial business generates
other businesses which generate other businesses which generate
other businesses....which generate other businesses. A political
entity, who manages to think long-term, would create a business
environment that promoted this kind of business instead of a
short-term, get rich quickly, kind of business (such as building
a gambling casino). The taxes collected with the latter scheme
are once-only where the former generates lots of tax revenues
over time.
>
> Producing anything people are willing to pay for, even if it's
> illegal, produces wealth in the sense that economists use the term.
But that's short term and I don't consider it to lead to prosperity.
The economists are simply wrong to not make a distinction.
>
> It can indeed be said that producing drugs - like producing tobacco
> and alcohol, like producing pornography, like producing even
> entertainments of an idle and trashy kind, does not truly add to the
> real wealth of a nation.
It doesn't.
>However, since currently the economists'
> definition is the default one, to avoid a needless argument, you have
> to begin by explaining the definition you're using.
I tried above. I guess I am disagreeing with "current" economists.
We're in a big mess at the moment because of this kind of short-term
thinking.
/BAH
Morten Reistad
Roca-gil (probably TM; i didn't check) is the substance of last
resort when you need to keep water out of somewhere, like a tunnel,
arena etc. Highly toxic until settled, and expensive.
-- mrr
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Apr 2, 6:12 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>>
>>> No. that's not wealth. Wealth is a n-derivative, not a single
>>> derivative. There isn't much industry involved in
>>> growing and then smoking the hemp and it doesn't generate side
>>> businesses. thus, it does not generate wealth.
>>
>> It depends on what definition of "wealth" you use.
>
> Yea. I've been trying to think of a sentence that would explain
> it but have failed. I'm thinking of it in terms of long-term
> rather than short-term where the initial business generates
> other businesses which generate other businesses which generate
> other businesses....which generate other businesses. A political
> entity, who manages to think long-term, would create a business
> environment that promoted this kind of business instead of a
> short-term, get rich quickly, kind of business (such as building
> a gambling casino). The taxes collected with the latter scheme
> are once-only where the former generates lots of tax revenues
> over time.
Bad example, Barb. City hall's 10% cut of the local casino's
take amounts to $10 million per year. Every year. This also
explains why casinos can do whatever they want - if there's
a conflict with local bylaws, the speed with which the casino
is issued a variance is nothing less than miraculous.
--
/~\ 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!
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> Bad example, Barb. City hall's 10% cut of the local casino's
> take amounts to $10 million per year. Every year. This also
> explains why casinos can do whatever they want - if there's
> a conflict with local bylaws, the speed with which the casino
> is issued a variance is nothing less than miraculous.
Here in Maine, as I understand it, the 'casinos' are simply dens of
one-armed bandits. As far as I can tell there is no gambling (i.e.
Poker, Blackjack, Dice, Roulette, etc.). This gives the system the
maximum effect in transferring wealth to the 'casino' operators and
the tax collectors.
Quadibloc
> Bad example, Barb. Â City hall's 10% cut of the local casino's
> take amounts to $10 million per year. Â Every year. Â This also
> explains why casinos can do whatever they want - if there's
> a conflict with local bylaws, the speed with which the casino
> is issued a variance is nothing less than miraculous.
It is possible, though, to note what a casino fails to produce that a
farm or a factory succeeds in producing.
A casino redistributes money.
A farm or a factory produces useful and necessary goods.
The trouble economists have, though, is that 'useful' or 'necessary'
are subjective terms. A lottery, as one form of gambling, takes a
small amount of money from each of many people, who do not find that
small amount of money important, and gives them what they could not
easily obtain by any other means - a chance, however ridiculously
slim, of having a sum of money large enough to be very useful. This
could be seen as a service having genuine value (i.e., it assists in
*capital formation*; in fact, this is why gambling is so popular among
the Chinese, because for a long time, while they did have paper money,
they didn't have banks to loan money on collateral to start a business
if one had a good business plan) just as, say, insurance is a valuable
service, even though it just shuffles money around.
To make economics approach being a science, economists have to limit
themselves to what can be studied in an objective manner.
Now, the *hard* sciences can speak to many of the things economists
choose to ignore. Such as the ability to feed the maximum number of
people on a given extent of land, while avoiding phenomena such as
pollution and soil erosion which would make the level of production
unsustainable.
Sound management of - and public policy towards - productive activity
is an interdisciplinary subject, and cannot be done on the basis of
economics alone.
John Savard
jmfbahciv
each year. Creating a business environment which promotes wealth
increases, would make that $10 million become $10 billion.
Slight exaggeration but not at a state nor national level.
/BAH
Walter Bushell
wrote:
> It's a perfect example. That 10% stays at $10 million, or whatever,
> each year. Creating a business environment which promotes wealth
> increases, would make that $10 million become $10 billion.
> Slight exaggeration but not at a state nor national level.
>
> /BAH
Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown. Casinos
are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather redirecting
the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people from out of state,
it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Here in Maine, as I understand it, the 'casinos' are simply dens of
> one-armed bandits. As far as I can tell there is no gambling (i.e.
> Poker, Blackjack, Dice, Roulette, etc.). This gives the system the
> maximum effect in transferring wealth to the 'casino' operators and
> the tax collectors.
one of the first big indian casinos on the east coast was
an early ha/cmp adopter
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
operations by one of the big gaming corporations. original plan was week
of testing before going live 7x24 ... but they decided to open for
business after first 24hrs (lots of crossed fingers).
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown. Casinos
> are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather redirecting
> the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people from out of state,
> it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
casinos frequently claim 95-98+% payout ... with personal taxes on (big)
winnings.
gov. lotteries have claimed as little as 60-70% payout (of amount
collected) AND that payout has personal taxes (in effect they can take
30-40% of the money coming in ... and then again as taxes on the money
paid out).
Walter Bushell
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
> > Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown. Casinos
> > are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather redirecting
> > the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people from out of state,
> > it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
>
> casinos frequently claim 95-98+% payout ... with personal taxes on (big)
> winnings.
>
> gov. lotteries have claimed as little as 60-70% payout (of amount
> collected) AND that payout has personal taxes (in effect they can take
> 30-40% of the money coming in ... and then again as taxes on the money
> paid out).
Like a urologist, they got you cuming or going.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
www.icis.com/Articles/1997/11/03/50629/acrylamide-minor-factor-in-accident.html
#
www.toxforum.org/documents/Past_Meetings/European_Meetings/2002_European_Meetings/5_3_hellenas.pdf
#
http://books.google.com/books?id=iU94Um4V85wC discusses some of the
acrylamide grouts that are/were available in the USA. (ch 11)
Roland Hutchinson
> The trouble economists have, though, is that 'useful' or 'necessary'
> are subjective terms. A lottery, as one form of gambling, takes a
> small amount of money from each of many people, who do not find that
> small amount of money important, and gives them what they could not
> easily obtain by any other means - a chance, however ridiculously
> slim, of having a sum of money large enough to be very useful. This
> could be seen as a service having genuine value (i.e., it assists in
> *capital formation*; in fact, this is why gambling is so popular among
> the Chinese, because for a long time, while they did have paper money,
> they didn't have banks to loan money on collateral to start a business
> if one had a good business plan) just as, say, insurance is a valuable
> service, even though it just shuffles money around.
Was it Mark Twain who pointed out that life insurance is simply a way of
betting the insurance company that you are going to die, and hoping that
you will lose.
Actually, more specifically the bet is that you will die _sooner than the
life insurance company thinks you will_.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
jmfbahciv
> In article <grfka...@news7.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol>
> wrote:
>
>> It's a perfect example. That 10% stays at $10 million, or whatever,
>> each year. Creating a business environment which promotes wealth
>> increases, would make that $10 million become $10 billion.
>> Slight exaggeration but not at a state nor national level.
>>
>> /BAH
>
> Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown.
they have been generating wealth for a century. The fact that
unions and protectionism has stultified their wealth potential
is not part of this discussion; it's another discussion we've
had a couple months ago.
>Casinos
> are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather redirecting
> the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people from out of state,
> it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
But it makes no money!
I don't know how to explain this any other way.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
and no wealth is generated. Business and, thus, production
comes to a halt. It's what happened in Rome. When the straw
broke, trade stopped within a few decades. This rapidity
still astounds me.
/BAH
Walter Bushell
wrote:
It's like any entertainment business. What wealth does a fine restaurant
generate?
CBFalconer
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown.
>
> they have been generating wealth for a century. The fact that
> unions and protectionism has stultified their wealth potential
> is not part of this discussion; it's another discussion we've
> had a couple months ago.
>
>> Casinos are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather
>> redirecting the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people
>> from out of state, it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
>
> But it makes no money!
Nothing makes money, except the mint. Most of what it makes is
just paper. What you are talking about is extracting money from
one group to another. It is a simple way of tracking borrowing.
jmfbahciv
It provides sustenance for the people who are creating wealth. It's a
support center and part of the infrastructure that helps to generate
wealth. This is one of the businesses that get created if there
is wealth being created in the area.
/BAH
Patrick Scheible
> jmfbahciv wrote:
> > Walter Bushell wrote:
> >
> ... snip ...
> >
> >> Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown.
> >
> > they have been generating wealth for a century. The fact that
> > unions and protectionism has stultified their wealth potential
> > is not part of this discussion; it's another discussion we've
> > had a couple months ago.
> >
> >> Casinos are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather
> >> redirecting the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people
> >> from out of state, it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
> >
> > But it makes no money!
>
> Nothing makes money, except the mint. Most of what it makes is
> just paper.
Not to quibble or anything, but the mint doesn't make paper, the mint
makes coins. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper.
-- Patrick
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Not to quibble or anything, but the mint doesn't make paper, the mint
>makes coins. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper.
>
I would have thought that the Bureau just buys the paper from
somewhere, and then prints on it.
--
ArarghMail904 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Roland Hutchinson
> On 09 Apr 2009 09:33:07 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>Not to quibble or anything, but the mint doesn't make paper, the mint
>>makes coins. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper.
>>
> I would have thought that the Bureau just buys the paper from
> somewhere, and then prints on it.
Correct. They buy it from Crane & Co.
You, too, can buy paper from Crane's (www.crane.com) -- but not _that_
paper.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>
>> On 09 Apr 2009 09:33:07 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Not to quibble or anything, but the mint doesn't make paper, the mint
>>>makes coins. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper.
>>>
>> I would have thought that the Bureau just buys the paper from
>> somewhere, and then prints on it.
>
>Correct. They buy it from Crane & Co.
>
>You, too, can buy paper from Crane's (www.crane.com) -- but not _that_
>paper.
I should hope not. :-)
Roland Hutchinson
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:29:59 -0400, Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>>
>>> On 09 Apr 2009 09:33:07 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>Not to quibble or anything, but the mint doesn't make paper, the mint
>>>>makes coins. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper.
>>>>
>>> I would have thought that the Bureau just buys the paper from
>>> somewhere, and then prints on it.
>>
>>Correct. They buy it from Crane & Co.
>>
>>You, too, can buy paper from Crane's (www.crane.com) -- but not _that_
>>paper.
> I should hope not. :-)
Hey, I figure if their run-of-the-mill stuff was good enough for Paul Revere
to print money on, it ought to be good enough for anyone...
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
e.g. McDonalds, Hardies, Dunkin Donuts, generate?
Or the tobacco and cigarette industry?
Jim Braun
classics or computer folklore. Trim accordingly.
Walter Bushell
wrote:
A meeting place. When you get over $100.00 for two people, it's cusine
not food in the sense of sustenance you are paying for. Of course, it
could be sustenance in the form of currency or well you know.
Walter Bushell
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>
> > On 09 Apr 2009 09:33:07 -0700, Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>
> >>Not to quibble or anything, but the mint doesn't make paper, the mint
> >>makes coins. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes paper.
> >>
> > I would have thought that the Bureau just buys the paper from
> > somewhere, and then prints on it.
>
> Correct. They buy it from Crane & Co.
>
> You, too, can buy paper from Crane's (www.crane.com) -- but not _that_
> paper.
Being in possession of that paper, while it is not perhaps illegal, will
get you very much suspected of counterfeiting I reckon.
Roland Hutchinson
Oh, it's plenty illegal. 18 USC 474A(a):
Whoever has in his control or possession, after a distinctive
paper has been adopted by the Secretary of the Treasury for the
obligations and other securities of the United States, any similar
paper adapted to the making of any such obligation or other
security, except under the authority of the Secretary of the
Treasury, is guilty of a class B felony.
Charles Richmond
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>> Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown.
>> they have been generating wealth for a century. The fact that
>> unions and protectionism has stultified their wealth potential
>> is not part of this discussion; it's another discussion we've
>> had a couple months ago.
>>
>>> Casinos are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather
>>> redirecting the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people
>>> from out of state, it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
>> But it makes no money!
>
> Nothing makes money, except the mint. Most of what it makes is
> just paper. What you are talking about is extracting money from
> one group to another. It is a simple way of tracking borrowing.
>
ISTM that BAH is *not* talking about "making money", but about
"creating wealth" by building or making some product for people
to use. ISTM that BAH does *not* credit moving money from one
person to another as "making money" or "creating wealth". She
wants some substantial and useful product to be created.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
CBFalconer
>
> Please, folks, this thread has nothing to do anymore with
> humanities classics or computer folklore. Trim accordingly.
a.f.c has no topicality restrictions. You can set follow-ups.
Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. See the following links:
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/> (taming google)
<http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/> (newusers)
Roland Hutchinson
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>
>> ... snip ...
>>>> Or nothing, or even negative as the car manufactures have shown.
>>> they have been generating wealth for a century. The fact that
>>> unions and protectionism has stultified their wealth potential
>>> is not part of this discussion; it's another discussion we've
>>> had a couple months ago.
>>>
>>>> Casinos are one of the better ways of making money, :( or rather
>>>> redirecting the flow to the owners. And if you can attract people
>>>> from out of state, it's free money, on the first anal lysis.
>>> But it makes no money!
>>
>> Nothing makes money, except the mint. Most of what it makes is
>> just paper. What you are talking about is extracting money from
>> one group to another. It is a simple way of tracking borrowing.
>>
>
> ISTM that BAH is *not* talking about "making money", but about
> "creating wealth" by building or making some product for people
> to use. ISTM that BAH does *not* credit moving money from one
> person to another as "making money" or "creating wealth". She
> wants some substantial and useful product to be created.
Please don't anyone tell her how close she is coming to reinventing Marxism.
I don't think she could bear the shock of knowing.
jmfbahciv
Those teach kids how to work and also provide food for people who
work.
> Or the tobacco and cigarette industry?
These are consumables, not capital.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
How am I inventing Marxism?!!! It's the people who don't know
how work gets done who will greet Marxist economies with open
arms. We, the US, are very, very close to this right now.
/BAH