Chip with simple program for Toy

[John Fields]

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:07:39 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

On Aug 11, 1:48 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:

There is nothing easier than sitting around and calling other ideas/people
stupid, and/or merely "wishing/hoping".  What's hard is getting off one's
butt to actually work on doing/creating/inventing something.  

Lessee. Let's use 19th century technology to solve 21st century
problems. Yeah, sure that will work. I'm installing a windmill to pump
water for my horse watering trough right now!

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  

I know just what you mean. You may not know how to cure cancer, but
you DO know how to bounce a basketball! So bounce a basketball to cure
cancer! The important thing is not WHAT you are doing, the important
thing is getting credit for at least trying *something*!

Moron.

---
If you meant for "Moron" to be your .sig, then spot on!

Benj is obviously a newbie describing the elation he feels while
expending the work needed to deal with discovery, while you seem to be
the spoiler, demeaning his work as inconsequential.

In other words, trying to shut him down.

Why would you want to do that?


JF

 

[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.*

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.  

Obama could use the Patriot Act to go after the Tim McVeigh wing of
the NRA.

. . .

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

That's mighty Christian of you.

Muslims, Jews and Unitarians are Free to Choose to dodge 'n dodge,
assuming you don't git pushed too far and pull out yer "pocket veto"
on them liberaloon Unitarians.


Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 19, 3:17 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.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.  

Obama could use the Patriot Act to go after the Tim McVeigh wing of
the NRA.

Yeah. All one of them. Wait. He's dead. So
now, there's not even one. You do the math.

But perhaps Obama could reanimate him and
execute him again and again, the way they
reanimated Jimmy Carter. And the way he
can reanimate the Jimmy Carter high-tax
stagflation boom. Night of the philosophical
living dead.

GOP shill tank economists are Free to
Choose use any daffynition they please.
That's mighty Christian of you.

Muslims, Jews and Unitarians are Free to Choose to dodge 'n dodge,
assuming you don't git pushed too far and pull out yer "pocket veto"
on them liberaloon Unitarians.

That's mighty Christian of you.

 

[Jamie]

Androcles 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

Are you trying to imply something with that video?

http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

 

[Androcles]

"Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote in message
news:XBKqk.397$Is1.390@newsfe04.iad...

Androcles 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

Are you trying to imply something with that video?

I never try to imply anything. Either I do imply or any perceived
implication
is on the part of the reader.

 

[Democracy Highlander]

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:

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

Of course, 2 idiots hating each other because each of them want the power to
enslave the people.

There is NO difference between the finality in communism and fascism. They
both lead to the same end: A plutocracy where a small oligarchy run as
tyrant over the enslaved people.

The difference between the communism and fascism it is only the path taken
to achieve the same finality. And the path taken is the one which select
how are the future plutocrats selected. So, if one fascist want to be the
leader of course he will hate his competition, the communist who dream of
the same job. "Free market" competition at work

The opposite to plutocracy (communism, fascism/libertarianism) it is the
social-democracy.

--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:08:18 -0400, Democracy Highlander
<nospam_example_com@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is NO difference between the finality in communism and fascism. They
both lead to the same end: A plutocracy where a small oligarchy run as
tyrant over the enslaved people.

Sort of like capitalism in that regard. Or libertarianism. welcome to
human nature.

 

[DB]

retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:08:18 -0400, Democracy Highlander
nospam_example_com@yahoo.com> wrote:

There is NO difference between the finality in communism and fascism. They
both lead to the same end: A plutocracy where a small oligarchy run as
tyrant over the enslaved people.


Sort of like capitalism in that regard. Or libertarianism. welcome to
human nature.

Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.
~unknown

It is always popular to blame a system rather than human nature. Such is
denial.

A reading of "Animal Farm" is in order.....

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:33:04 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a juvenile troll thats all it can ever manage.

---
Got you backed into a corner, huh?

JF

 

[Democracy Highlander]

DB wrote:

Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.
~unknown

It is always popular to blame a system rather than human nature. Such is
denial.

Of course you have to blame the system.
It is the system what allows the bad side of the human nature to prosper.
And when this happen, the system need to be reformed to reduce the damages
and amplify the good parts.


--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

[QuantumDot]

On 2008-08-18 21:42:22 +0200, Video61@tcq.net said:

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

What is higher: 440 Hz or the Eiffel Tower?

What, no takers? Fucking loser.

 

[Democracy Highlander]

QuantumDot wrote:

What is higher: 440 Hz or the Eiffel Tower?

Obviously Eiffel Tower is higher

Eiffel Tower it is higher than the median man made building, while a 440 Hz
sound it is lower than the median man made sound. So easy riddle


--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

[DB]

Democracy Highlander wrote:

DB wrote:

Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.
~unknown

It is always popular to blame a system rather than human nature. Such is
denial.

Of course you have to blame the system.
It is the system what allows the bad side of the human nature to prosper.
And when this happen, the system need to be reformed to reduce the damages
and amplify the good parts.


Humans developing systems that enforce morality on humans. Sounds like a

viscous circle to me.

Do you have historical precedence?

 

[Democracy Highlander]

DB wrote:

Humans developing systems that enforce morality on humans. Sounds like a
viscous circle to me.

Correct. This is the reason why it is idiotic to oppose the change and
defend a status-quo. ANY status-quo. This is the reason why conservatism it
is such a humongous mistake.

Chances are that every implemented system will have some flaws, due to human
nature. Some of the flaws can be tolerated some not. As a mentally sane
society it make all the sense in the world to tinker with the system to
make it better based on the present situation and the best estimate of the
future. First, to eliminate the biggest problems.

However, due to the huge complexity of the system it is unlikely to ever
exist a silver-bullet solution which solve all the issues and do not
introduce others.

Therefore, what into a particular system are today small issues, their
negative effect can accumulate over time and the accumulation can become
fundamentally problematic. As of that moment, it is time again for a change
to reform the system into a different way, to allow elimination of the
(large) accumulated problems, even if that induce other issues. Issues
which in the future need to be eliminated too when their negative effect
accumulates.

You got the idea:

There is NO status-quo that deserve to be defended. Opposition to change it
is a pathetic idiocy. Conservatism it is pure insanity.

Do you have historical precedence?

Yes, all human society from the origins till preset.

--
The world of the future will be fully democratic or will not be at all.

Democracy Highlander

P.S.:
When I say "democratic", I use the word democratic coming from democracy not
from Democratic party. I am not connected in any way with Democratic party
and if they fail to do as promised and cut corporate corruption I have no
problem to turn on them and blog against them too.

 

[DB]

Democracy Highlander wrote:

DB wrote:

Humans developing systems that enforce morality on humans. Sounds like a
viscous circle to me.

Correct. This is the reason why it is idiotic to oppose the change and
defend a status-quo. ANY status-quo. This is the reason why conservatism it
is such a humongous mistake.

I'm not defending the status-quo. But I'm not going to pretend that the
'other party' isn't more of the same.

Chances are that every implemented system will have some flaws, due to human
nature. Some of the flaws can be tolerated some not. As a mentally sane
society it make all the sense in the world to tinker with the system to
make it better based on the present situation and the best estimate of the
future. First, to eliminate the biggest problems.

Gee, the only ones tinkering are insiders. We have no say. Have you ever
voted on a national law? You do understand that there are no democracies
in the world?

However, due to the huge complexity of the system it is unlikely to ever
exist a silver-bullet solution which solve all the issues and do not
introduce others.

Come on. This has been the same kind of world for all of written
history. Those that have, and those that don't.

Therefore, what into a particular system are today small issues, their
negative effect can accumulate over time and the accumulation can become
fundamentally problematic. As of that moment, it is time again for a change
to reform the system into a different way, to allow elimination of the
(large) accumulated problems, even if that induce other issues. Issues
which in the future need to be eliminated too when their negative effect
accumulates.

Time again for change? When/what was the last time?

You got the idea:

???

There is NO status-quo that deserve to be defended. Opposition to change it
is a pathetic idiocy. Conservatism it is pure insanity.

You are preaching to the choir. Short of revolution, how do you see
change coming?

Do you have historical precedence?

Yes, all human society from the origins till preset.

Well, nothing has changed in that time, just a changing of the guard. Do
you have a specific example of what you are trumpeting about?

 

[DB]

T-minus108 wrote:

On Aug 21, 8:18 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:

You are preaching to the choir. Short of revolution, how do you see
change coming?



Revolution is the point.

In order for democracy to prevail, there must be a revolution...

There is no such thing as 'democracy' and there never has been that I
know of.

at
least every 20 years... There has to be a balance between the
government and the people, because as soon as you're government is
controling every aspect of you're life, it's no longer you're
government, it's you're god.

Other than shoving England out a couple of hundred years ago, what are
you talking about?

Change has to happen over and over and over again, otherwise, the
people that are supposed to control the government, just sit back and
watch it devour everything they hold dear.

And this has/will happen when/where?

Thats why I can't stand to
listen to people that want everything to stay the same... that won't
get you improvement.

For the third time in this thread, I don't condone the status-quo. See
'preaching to the choir'.

 

[T-minus108]

On Aug 21, 8:18 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:

You are preaching to the choir. Short of revolution, how do you see
change coming?

Revolution is the point.

In order for democracy to prevail, there must be a revolution... at
least every 20 years... There has to be a balance between the
government and the people, because as soon as you're government is
controling every aspect of you're life, it's no longer you're
government, it's you're god.

Change has to happen over and over and over again, otherwise, the
people that are supposed to control the government, just sit back and
watch it devour everything they hold dear. Thats why I can't stand to
listen to people that want everything to stay the same... that won't
get you improvement.

 

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price
<nini_pad@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 21, 1:27 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:08:18 -0400, Democracy Highlander

nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is NO difference between the finality in communism and fascism. They
both lead to the same end: A plutocracy where a small oligarchy run as
tyrant over the enslaved people.

Sort of like capitalism in that regard. Or libertarianism. welcome to
human nature.

Of course you have no actual evidence that's that's true.
Capitalism
historically didn't lead to a small oligarchy run as a tyrant over
the
enslaved people, it ran as a fairly large class desperately trying to
figure out how to serve the people. Small oligarchies are promoted
by anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian restrictions on trade like Anti-
Trust
laws and industry protection.

Oh Christ the ignroant libertoon is back with his cartoon history.

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 19, 2:40 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?"

And what possible use could the answer to that question have?
Especially considering you don't even know what free speech is
and have changed the question in the past.
Oh and BTW the answer is no.

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

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 19, 11:57 pm, 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.  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.

It's not at all self-evident. I can easy conclude a free trade in
Koran's
even if I'm not allowed to say the Koran is false.

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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -