Chip with simple program for Toy

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 18, 7:18 am, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rod Speed is arrogant, along with Grendel, Jim Pennino and Greg Nail.
I remember a thread where Rod Speed called my altruistic and socialist
ideas about land and illegal alliens my "little pathetic fantasyland".
Here's the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/browse_thread/thread/7b...

There are a lot of pro-capitalist, fascist and anti-communist posters
on usenet which makes me believe usnet serves as an haven for greedy
pro-capitalist assholes and Nazis.

Actually, being anti-communist is similar to being anti-fascist,
because there's about a dime's worth of difference between the
two. The only difference is in marketing material.

Actually the fascists were rabidly anti-communist. Don't let the
reality and details dissuade you though.

 

On Aug 18, 7:18 am, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Rod Speed is arrogant, along with Grendel, Jim Pennino and Greg Nail.
I remember a thread where Rod Speed called my altruistic and socialist
ideas about land and illegal alliens my "little pathetic fantasyland".
Here's the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/browse_thread/thread/7b...

There are a lot of pro-capitalist, fascist and anti-communist posters
on usenet which makes me believe usnet serves as an haven for greedy
pro-capitalist assholes and Nazis.

Actually, being anti-communist is similar to being anti-fascist,
because there's about a dime's worth of difference between the
two. The only difference is in marketing material.

 

On Aug 18, 12:42 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:

On Aug 18, 11:40 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:





This is not a wager.  It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1.  The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2.  The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3.  Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4.  The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5.  Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address.  If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash.  (Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Bret Cahill

 you have posted this many times before over the years, and still no
takers. they cannot answer it with a straight yes or no.

That is depends on what your definition of
"yes or no" is.

 i even had a cato guy threaten me with a law suit on the ngs once
years ago, till i pointed out to him that its free speech, and if he
sues, he will have to in a federal court, his response, crickets.

Actually, even if it were libel (which is not
protected speech, remember) it would be
impossible to prove who posted it.

 they may answer, but the answer will be so distorted with
distractions/quibbles/trivial assumptions, that when you are done
reading it, you will realize that this is what you are dealing with,
"definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases."

That is not the definition of a cult, though it may
possibly be a description. A cult is defined: "a
religion with fewer members." Once a cult gets
big enough for big media to be afraid to call it a
cult, it isn't a cult.

 or,
"what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.

Or, possibly, one who asks questions that make no
sense at all?

 what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all".

Or, possibly, one who attempts to answer this unanswerable,
which has driven the whole of Leftadopians into hiding in their
rabbit holes, to seek solace in their granola pipes:

Does free trade precede freedom of the press?

Though the answer is a self-evident truth, leftards attempt to
answer it, and wind up blowing their Turing-incomplete minds
like the poor androids of Star Trek when confronted with the
liar's paradox.

 

On Aug 18, 5:54 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:28:29 -0700 (PDT), Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 18, 7:18 am, DarkMatter <darkmatte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rod Speed is arrogant, along with Grendel, Jim Pennino and Greg Nail.
I remember a thread where Rod Speed called my altruistic and socialist
ideas about land and illegal alliens my "little pathetic fantasyland".
Here's the thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.california/browse_thread/thread/7b....

There are a lot of pro-capitalist, fascist and anti-communist posters
on usenet which makes me believe usnet serves as an haven for greedy
pro-capitalist assholes and Nazis.

Actually, being anti-communist is similar to being anti-fascist,
because there's about a dime's worth of difference between the
two.  The only difference is in marketing material.

Actually the fascists were rabidly anti-communist. Don't let the
reality and details dissuade you though.

So??? That's the marketing material. Catholics and
Protestants are pretty rabidly anti-each-other too. Or
they used to be, before their balls were cut off.
Mohammed still has his balls for the time being.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:56:09 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

The Trucker wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? Are you seeing something in coal that
you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a correlation?

Particulates.

Sulphur content too.

Graham

I meant to say that. Really.

Before people "fix" gasoline-powered cars, which don't need fixing,
they should do something about diesels. Diesels are a serious
pollution problem.

And those coal plants in China.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
The Trucker wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"John Larkin" wrote

CO2 is not a pollutant.

That's not what the supreme court says :
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

Then they're BARKING MAD.

So what's causing the climate change? We see that the sunspot
correlation is crapola. Is the climate changing and the north pole
melting because we fart too much? Are you seeing something in coal that
you do not see in auto exhausts and can you formulate a correlation?

Particulates.

Sulphur content too.

Graham

I meant to say that. Really.

Before people "fix" gasoline-powered cars, which don't need fixing,
they should do something about diesels. Diesels are a serious
pollution problem.

In the EU, diesel cars now have cats and some at least have special particulates
traps which burn them off harmlessly AIUI from time to time. We have the
advantage too that we switched to 'clean diesel' some time ago, a process that
is only now taking place in the USA. Plus vehicle diesel engine design in Europe
has become highly advanced. Even 20 years ago I drove a mid-compact Peugeot with
a 1.9 litre turbo diesel engine and it was quick. No slugggish acceleration
either.

And those coal plants in China.

Couldn't agree more.

Graham

 

[John]

Andy F. wrote:

BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:751e2011-1173-4ce2-81f3-fb1200bbe6e4@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
This is not a wager. It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

Don't be silly. A professional economist with a job at the Cato Institute
isn't going to waste their time writing articles for $200.

And he certainly would not involve himself in a stupid question so
poorly grounded, probably not for any amount of money.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:41:59 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

---
Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and
error.
---

There might just be a reason why we calculate instead of experiment.

---
Yeah but, initially, we still have to experiment in order to determine
whether the calculation was right or not.

JF

 

[Androcles]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jiela41hgkv7gj9dpjg7dkc1vcuuci499b@4ax.com...

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:41:59 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable
alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

---
Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and
error.

Everything IS built using trial and error.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5h2NF2xMYI

 

On Aug 18, 4:38�pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 18, 12:42�pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:





On Aug 18, 11:40�am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

This is not a wager. �It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1. �The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2. �The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3. �Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4. �The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5. �Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address. �If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash. ďż˝(Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Bret Cahill

�you have posted this many times before over the years, and still no
takers. they cannot answer it with a straight yes or no.

That is depends on what your definition of
"yes or no" is.

This isn't a police state. GOP shill tank economists are Free to
Choose use any daffynition they please.

So they are Free to Choose 4 responses:

1. Say "yes" and start looking for a job in the productive sector.

2. Say "no" and contradict a self evident truth and start looking for
a job in the productive sector.

3. Say "don't know" and look really dumb and start looking for a job
in the productive sector.

4. Say anything and start looking for a job in the productive sector.

So they prefer to dodge the question and look disreputable which
allows me to undermine their propaganda.

Indeed, this was so successful Karl Rove quite astutely abandoned the
free marketry rhetoric of the Gipster for jingoism:

"Either you support tax cuts for the rich or you're a Saddam lover."

Not that that would last long either.


Bret Cahill

 

This is not a wager. �It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*
Don't be silly. A professional economist with a job at the Cato Institute
isn't going to waste their time writing articles for $200.

And he certainly would not involve himself in a stupid question so
poorly grounded,

Others have broached the exact same issue. Rothbard said free speech
and free trade are correlative. A Dr. Coase once suggested free trade
should be protected like free speech prompting a blistering response
from Ayn Rand.

probably not for any amount of money.

It would have to be enough for a perpetuity comparable to his income.
Eventually, as they keep dodging the question, this amount could
become quite low, chump change for a presidential campaign.

Karl Rove quite astutely abandoned the free marketry rhetoric of the
Party of Gipster in favor of jingoism.

He knew the GOP shill tank economists could no longer provide any
political cover anymore.


Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 19, 7:14 am, "Andy F." <never.m...@tesco.net> wrote:

BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

news:751e2011-1173-4ce2-81f3-fb1200bbe6e4@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

This is not a wager.  It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1.  The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2.  The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3.  Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4.  The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5.  Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address.  If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash.  (Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Don't be silly. A professional economist with a job at the Cato Institute
isn't going to waste their time writing articles for $200.

ah, but we know they surf the ngs, and i have engaged a few over the
years.

 

This is not a wager. �It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1. �The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2. �The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3. �Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4. �The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5. �Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address. �If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash. ďż˝(Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Don't be silly. A professional economist with a job at the Cato Institute
isn't going to waste their time writing articles for $200.

�ah, but we know they surf the ngs, and i have engaged a few over the
years.

Anyone, for very little money, about $1 at the post office, can out
any outspoken GOP "market" economist simply by posting here with the
tracking number from a polite hard copy letter, before and after it is
sent.

I have original hard copy scribblings from Milton Friedman. What are
the odds of _all_ of the "outspoken" economists dodgin' 'n dodgin' one
simple question?

Quite good actually. They _all_ know the correct answer will
immediately end up in a federal lawsuit that will destroy their
careers.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:49:45 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jiela41hgkv7gj9dpjg7dkc1vcuuci499b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:41:59 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable
alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

---
Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and
error.

Everything IS built using trial and error.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5h2NF2xMYI

---
Initially that's true, but once you've got the numbers down right then
when you build it using those numbers you know it'll come out right.

Well... Most of the time.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:10:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

And anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

Really?

Yep, the only thing that makes any sense is to work out a config
that the calculations show will work and build that instead.

---
Still, the only way the calculations can be proved to be correct is to
build and test.
---

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and error.

The exact opposite actually, as you know full well.

---
Well, that was a cute "about face" seeing as you were the one who
claimed, just a few sentences ago, that: "Pointless bothering with
most real world engineering calculations."
---

There might just be a reason why we calculate instead of experiment.

Yeah but, initially, we still have to experiment in order
to determine whether the calculation was right or not.

Different matter entirely to what was being discussed, what can be calculated to
be a non viable approach once we have established the basis for the calculations.

---
Another "about face", since the basis for the calculations being
correct is experiment.
---

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that if we calculate that
a big bridge or a big multistory building or a heavy aircraft wont work in a
particular config, we dont bother to build that config to prove the calculations,
we find a different config that we calculate will work and build that instead.

---
Ah, but we learn the configuration was wrong by building it and
watching it fail, as you'd know if you were as smart as you profess to
be.

Here, watch this, ya fuckin' pinhead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw

JF

 

On Aug 19, 6:57 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

On Aug 18, 4:38 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:





On Aug 18, 12:42 pm, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:

On Aug 18, 11:40 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

This is not a wager. It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1. The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2. The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3. Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4. The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5. Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address. If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash. (Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Bret Cahill

you have posted this many times before over the years, and still no
takers. they cannot answer it with a straight yes or no.

That is depends on what your definition of
"yes or no" is.

This isn't a police state.  

Yet. But when the regime of "Free Speech for
the Proletariatopia" breaks out, we're all going
to be pulled too far.

GOP shill tank economists are Free to
Choose use any daffynition they please.

That's mighty Christian of you.

So they are Free to Choose 4 responses:

1.  Say "yes" and start looking for a job in the productive sector.

That depends on what your definition of the word,
"productive" is. I have a feeling it means the Free
Speech for the Working Class Dept. of Redundancy
Dept.

2.  Say "no" and contradict a self evident truth and start looking for
a job in the productive sector.

Speech is a form of trade; it can't precede itself, can it?

3.  Say "don't know" and look really dumb and start looking for a job
in the productive sector.

That depends on what your definition of the word "job" is.

4.  Say anything and start looking for a job in the productive sector.

So they prefer to dodge the question and look disreputable which
allows me to undermine their propaganda.

That depends on what your definition of the word "undermine"
is. I think it's like this:

She's pink all the way to her undermine.

But I could be wrong.

Indeed, this was so successful Karl Rove quite astutely abandoned the
free marketry rhetoric of the Gipster for jingoism:

The Gipster wasn't jingoistic now? My, so I guess the Gipster
caused the leftardistopians to abandon their peacenik rhetoric
in favor of hebephrenic schizophrenia.

"Either you support tax cuts for the rich or you're a Saddam lover."

Cite please.

Not that that would last long either.

There's no interval shorter than an infinitesimal one.
But it's good that you live in an alternate universe.
Let 1000 flowers bloom, said the Mao. The Mao
that can be spoken of, though, is not the true
eternal Mao.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:12:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Androcles <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and error.

Everything IS built using trial and error.

Nope. Anything of any major value is calculated to be viable and then built.

---
Sorry, Charlie, that's just not true.

An excellent example would be ships' hulls which, for millennia, were
developed empirically with no regard for the underlying physics since,
at the time, there was none and the only thing anybody (Archimedes)
had figured out was how flotation worked.

Another example would be blowguns. Of major value because they put
food on the table, there are no calculation made as to their viability
since they're built without their builders knowing anything about pi
or PSI, and they just work.

Yet another example, from more recent times, would be the development
of the airfoil. I believe that, early on, various profiles were
evaluated empirically using wind tunnels and data gathered from those
runs used to establish the mathematical underpinning of their
operation.

And how about other greats like Samuel Finley Breese Morse who knew
nothing about transmission lines and yet managed to make a telegraph
work?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:23:57 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

The rules are simple.

1. ?The letterhead must be from Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von Mises
Inst.*

2. ?The Question must appear in the body of the letter.

3. ?Some text must appear to be an answer to The Question, either a
"yes" or "no" or "I dunno."

4. ?The signature of the outspoken economist must appear in the
letter.

5. ?Email BretCah...@aol.com a copy in an attached pdf or tiff file
along with a mailing address. ?If you are really secretive include a
map of a stump or pipe where I can stuff the cash. ?(Lower 48 only.)

* Other shill tanks may be considered.

Don't be silly. A professional economist with a job at the Cato Institute
isn't going to waste their time writing articles for $200.

?ah, but we know they surf the ngs, and i have engaged a few over the
years.

Anyone, for very little money, about $1 at the post office, can out
any outspoken GOP "market" economist simply by posting here with the
tracking number from a polite hard copy letter, before and after it is
sent.

I have original hard copy scribblings from Milton Friedman. What are
the odds of _all_ of the "outspoken" economists dodgin' 'n dodgin' one
simple question?

Quite good actually. They _all_ know the correct answer will
immediately end up in a federal lawsuit that will destroy their
careers.

---
So now it's "Brett Cahill the killer of Economists?"

You think too highly of yourself.

Your challenge being ignored isn't because it poses any danger to the
challengees, it's because you're not important enough for them to
offer a response.

Besides, you're not sincere in your criticism since all you're
interested in is trying to get to the top of the heap of crabs by
pulling down the top crabs.


JF

 

[Androcles]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:r7cma4hktl7762kg1g4okjm7km8rvfgcia@4ax.com...

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:49:45 +0100, "Androcles"
Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:jiela41hgkv7gj9dpjg7dkc1vcuuci499b@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:41:59 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote

ANd anyway, the fun part isn't automatically knowing in advnace
whether the idea will succeed - the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking,
and so on, needed to at least *try* to make it succeed

Pointless if some basic calculations show that it isnt a viable
alternative.

Not at all pointless, since in order to prove the calculations
correct reduction to practice must be attempted and result
in failure, quantitatively, as predicted by the calculations.

Pointless bothering with most real world engineering calculations.

---
Really?

Then according to you, everything should be built using trial and
error.

Everything IS built using trial and error.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5h2NF2xMYI

---
Initially that's true, but once you've got the numbers down right then
when you build it using those numbers you know it'll come out right.

Well... Most of the time.

JF

"Initial" = build.
"In service" = redundant.
"Redundant" = the useful life of the product has expired, scrap it.

Wanna buy a Leak turntable that plays 33 rpm LPs? I've got one, it's a
museum piece. Or an old Concorde, capable of Mach 2, still faster than
any commercial airliner flying today? Or a nuclear submarine? The numbers
are still "right".
Don't get me wrong, I go along with "the fun part is doing all the
planning, sketching, info research, and other creative thinking" but
realistically at the end of the day only the simplest ideas survive.
Everything is built using trial and error, everything can be improved on,
save the simple hammer, knife, comb, toothbrush etc.. Do they require
"real world engineering calculations" ?
This comb dates from the iron age:
http://www.buyorkney.com/information/orkney_guide_book/img/09_picts/buckquoy_pictish_comb.jpg