Driver to drive?

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:47:30 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

Never take insurance or health care advice from
a person calling themself "F Off And Die"..

It could be a very cost-effective health care strategy.

--sp

 

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:47:30 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:47:30 -0800 (PST), Greegor
greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

Never take insurance or health care advice from
a person calling themself "F Off And Die"..

It could be a very cost-effective health care strategy.

It's called "Obamacare" an it is *NOT* cost-effective.

 

[Greegor]

http://www.raythomas101.com/evitafactor.html

Collectivism Destroys Argentina's Economy
Copyright Š 1999 By Ray Thomas
Updated and Revised Copyright Š 2009 By Ray Thomas
A little-known fact in today's filtered news climate is the fact that the collectivist ideas foisted upon the people of Argentina by Evita Peron and her husband, Juan, destroyed what was one of the strongest free-market economies in the twentieth century. Largely forgotten today is the fact that earlier in this century, Argentina was the fourth richest country in the world.. Argentina's economy was so strong, in fact, that the Great Depression bothered it hardly at all. According to British historian Paul Johnson, it had: steady progress in the manufacturing, mining, oil, public utilities and electrical sectors. (Argentina) had a market economy, minimum government, a growing middle class, a free press, and the rule of law.
ENTER THE PERONS
But Argentina was seduced by promises of easy solutions to complex problems, which led to revolutionary rhetoric, and a military junta that in 1943 took power and appointed Col. Juan Domingo Peron as president. In 1945, he was tossed into jail by his military rivals, but was rescued by the work of his mistress, Eva Duarte, who roused the workers to take to the streets and demand his release. After his release, he married Eva and went on to be elected to the presidency in 1946.
CLASS WARFARE
Immediately, Peron began attacking capitalists, big ranchers, and the upper classes in general. He started all manner of public works projects to create government-supported jobs for the workers. He nationalized (stole) large industries, from banks to railroads to insurance companies. Then he made the unions into militant organizations by granting workers 13 months pay for 12 months of work [sound familiar? -RT], declaring numerous paid holidays and mandating job security [Government-forced entitlements to be paid for by those hated capitalists. You know, what our government is proposing now? -RT]
He forced businesses to give more benefits to their workers than they could afford and of course, passed generous social welfare legislation and expanded the government bureaucracy.
THE PEOPLE LOVED IT
They loved it because they were given what was stolen from the hated rich. They benefited from the thievery of the Perons. People who would not think of personally stealing from their neighbor allowed Peron to do it for them. Stealing doesn't seem to be wrong to some people when the government does it for them.
EVITA BECAME CO-PRESIDENT
Evita was a spiritual/political force in her own right and, even though not elected to any office, she became a "de facto co-president" who preached (as did Peron) hatred of the rich and love of the poor [again, does all this sound familiar? -RT], founded the Eva Peron Foundation with money she squeezed out of the unions and the very businesses of which she preached hatred.. This foundation established orphanages, homes for single women, and free medical clinics (all financed by other people's money, of course).
EVITA PERSONALLY GAVE AWAY OTHER PEOPLE'S BELONGINGS
The property she and her husband had gained with the money stolen from others, she personally gave to the poor -- publicly, of course -- which included money, medicine, bedding, and anything else she could think of. Naturally, this made her immensely popular and, according to political scientist Daniel Chirot, the subject of a fantastic, religious cult whose influence remains to this day.
FOUNDATION HAD OTHER PURPOSES
This foundation had other purposes, as well. It was used as a means to siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars gained from looted Nazi gold, cash, and art treasurers. This represented money they were paid for smuggling up to 15,000 Nazis out of Europe and into South America after World War II. Evita's famous tour of Europe, so well depicted in the movie Evita as a global public relations tour, was the cover she used to make the deal with the Nazis in 1947.
THE PERON FACTOR
But what were the actual results of the work of the Perons in the collectivizing of Argentina?
Productivity collapsed;
Agricultural production declined;
Inflation soared;
Corruption and featherbedding were rampant in the nationalized sector;
Disinvestment starved what was left of the private sector and capital (the hated rich) fled abroad;
Argentina's formerly vibrant economy had been effectively destroyed in less than a decade, in order to enrich Peron, his wife, and a few close associates.
SOMEONE ELSE IS TO BLAME
Peron muzzled the press when it criticized him. He stopped the Supreme Court (just as FDR did) when it objected to his assumption of extralegal powers (definition: rip-off of the people), and blamed everyone else but themselves for their country's worsening economic condition. Had Evita not died in 1952 of cancer, oppression in this country might have become even worse, as she was becoming fanatic about eliminating those opposed to her husband. People who opposed their thievery and murder were called government-haters, and reviled in the media [familiar again? -RT].
IT'S HAPPENING HERE!
If all this does sound familiar, it's because what is happening right now in this country is exactly the same thing that happened in Argentina, and which destroyed that country's economy.
BILL AND HILARY
Bill Clinton and his immensely popular wife (who goes around the world espousing all kinds of things that make her popular, just like Evita, even if she must steal your last dollar to pay for them) are even now (as this is written) working like beavers to make you hate the rich, after passing as many laws as they could while they were in power to give you bread and circuses to make you love them even more. At the same time, they took away your parental rights so they can teach your kids to love collectivism, unimpeded by you, and they systematically disarmed the American public. With their permission! The Republican administration that followed theirs didn't do a lot to "slow down" the movement toward socialism they helped along and Evita....er, Hillary wants now to be president in her own right (As did Evita) so she can continue this progression toward socialism.
BEYOND HELP
If you can't see the similarities between what is even now happening in the United States and what happened earlier in this century in Argentina, then you're beyond help. If you can see it, and you do nothing to help those of us who have seen it all along to stop it, you're worse than beyond help, you're hopeless.
GOOD MEN STAY QUIET
Winston Churchill once said: "All that is required for tyranny to flourish is that good men keep quiet." People give me all kinds of reasons for staying out of it. But if they continue, soon there won't be anything for them to stay out of. They will no longer have freedom, and Bill and Hillary will own everything they used to own.
SEE OUR FUTURE
If you want to see what the future holds for you and your country, just study Argentina's history from just before the Peron years through today. If we continue down the road Bill and Hillary and their ilk are leading us, America is going to go the same way as Argentina did. It has already moved too far in that direction.
Is that what you want?
(Update: Barack Hussein Obama is continuing her work and is moving us quickly ever closer to collectivism [socialism, communism, fascism], working as quickly as he can, hoping to gain as much power as he can before we tumble to what he is doing. If you don't believe that, study a little history and find out how little difference there is between socialism, communism, and fascism as well as all the other 'isms' they use to confuse you. 'RT)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 16 December 2013 14:16:20 UTC+11, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:15:08 -0500, "F.O.A.D." <noway@jose.com> wrote:
On 12/15/13, 9:32 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 16:22:13 -0800, "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com
wrote:

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 13:00:21 -0800, "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com
wrote:

Keep lying. Everyone needs to know you're a lefty.

I bet he's glad he not a moronic right wing ditto-head like you. You are a perfect example about how stupid and simple minded they can be.

krw is an exceptionally fine example of the breed. Anybody who doesn't share his opinions is a liar. It follows that he is always right - most of us would say far-right, but krw doesn't appreciate the distinction.

I'm sure you're glad there are more then two absolute morons in the world. It's the only way you're going to have a chance of being anything other than the world's biggest loser, F.

Thanks again for making my point so well, ditto-head. You know nothing, and make everything up based on that (non-existant)knowledge.

krw's knowledge is real enough - if mostly wrong. It doesn't relate to the real world that the rest of us live in, but it's simple enough that the rest of us can understand what he believes, though why he believes it is sometimes less obvious.

> >> BF, you're like all other lefties. If you aren't lying, you're not saying anything.

Vintage krw. If you are not agreeing with his silly ideas, you must be lying.

You've find the right newsgroup: rec.boats is full of foul, simple-minded, Limbaugh-idolizing right-wing trash just like you.

I've found? Really? You lefties are the dumbest liars since the dawn
of time.

Given krw's distinctly idiosyncratic definition of lying - saying something that krw doesn't agree with - this might have struck krw as a reasonable thing to say. From any other point of view, it's just krw being as stupid as ever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[RobertMacy]

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:46:16 -0700, Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.raythomas101.com/evitafactor.html
Collectivism Destroys Argentina's Economy
Copyright Š 1999 By Ray Thomas
Updated and Revised Copyright Š 2009 By Ray Thomas
A little-known fact in today's filtered news climate is the fact that
the collectivist ideas foisted upon the people of Argentina by Evita
Peron and her husband, Juan, destroyed what was one of the strongest
free-market economies in the twentieth century. Largely forgotten today
is the fact that earlier in this century, Argentina was the fourth
richest country in the world. Argentina's economy was so strong, in
fact, that the Great Depression bothered it hardly at all. According to
British historian Paul Johnson, it had: steady progress in the
manufacturing, mining, oil, public utilities and electrical sectors.
(Argentina) had a market economy, minimum government, a growing middle
class, a free press, and the rule of law.
...snip...

Interesting article.

especially the bit about "...minimum government,...".

Well, no risk here, that ship has sailed.

 

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:30:45 PM UTC-5, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:57:20 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/16/2013 7:23 PM, krw wrote:

Nah, the true hardcore leftists think Obama is a conservative.
You've seen their drivel, posted in AHR.


I remember watching a video about the "Occupy WTF" movement when an
interviewer asked a scraggly young man what form of government he wanted
for the United States? He answered, Communism. When the reporter
reminded him that most Communist countries like the former Soviet Union
have collapsed, the kid said it was because they didn't do it right, we
can do it better. What frigging planet do those young Leftist come from?
It really amazes that they are so unaware of the real world and how
things really work.

Of course. All leftists are the same. Brainwashed into a stupor.

They mean well, they're just non-critical thinkers.

They'd task a corrupt class of rulers with eliminating corruption,
protecting rights; think the same create justice and prosperity by
taking from some at their whim, and giving to others who please
them.

They thought Obamacare would cost less and let them keep their
plans.

They also believe government's an infinite moneybag, debt doesn't
matter, and more gov't overhead creates more everything.

The fact that it doesn't ever work--not in the first Depression
either--doesn't faze 'em. Live for the moment! (and pass on the
debt.)


Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 12:27:44 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 2:30:45 PM UTC-5, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:57:20 -0600, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/16/2013 7:23 PM, krw wrote:

Nah, the true hardcore leftists think Obama is a conservative.
You've seen their drivel, posted in AHR.

I remember watching a video about the "Occupy WTF" movement when an interviewer asked a scraggly young man what form of government he wanted for the United States? He answered, Communism. When the reporter reminded him that most Communist countries like the former Soviet Union have collapsed, the kid said it was because they didn't do it right, we can do it better. What frigging planet do those young Leftist come from?
It really amazes that they are so unaware of the real world and how things really work.

Pointing out that the Soviet Union hadn't done Communism right isn't exactly being unaware of the real world. Since US citizens routinely confuse Communism and socialism (which aren't the same thing) the scraggly young man might have had something closer to socialism in mind. He might also have been an anarcho-syndicalist - which is a variant of socialism that worked well enough when it was tried in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, but frightened the rest of the Spanish anti-Franco forces enough that they starved it of raw materials, while the Russian anti-Franco forces were equally unhappy about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia

by George Orwell is mostly about how this worked out.

> > Of course. All leftists are the same. Brainwashed into a stupor.

A trifle ironic, coming from krw, who exists in a stupor.

> They mean well, they're just non-critical thinkers.

Some more irony, since James Arthur practices "critical thinking" in the sense of being critical about material he doesn't agree with, while swallowing gross absurdities that fit his preferred point of view.

> They'd task a corrupt class of rulers with eliminating corruption, protecting rights; think the same create justice and prosperity by taking from some at their whim, and giving to others who please them.

That is how the US constitution works, in practice. Other countries, having seen the defects in the way the US constitution works in the USA, have gone on to write better constitutions, often with US help - as in Germany in 1948.

> They thought Obamacare would cost less and let them keep their plans.

They were told that it would let them keep their old plans - the caveat that those old plans had to cover the extra stuff that Obamacare was insisting on didn't get a lot of publicity. The claim that it was going to cost less sounds a trifle implausible, but no doubt James Arthur will be able to find a quote - almost certainly text-chopped out of context - to support his claim.

> They also believe government's an infinite moneybag, debt doesn't matter, and more gov't overhead creates more everything.

Nobody believes that government is an infinite moneybag, or that it doesn't cost money to run a welfare system. Quite a few people do believe that government debt should be allowed to expand when the economy is in recession or performing significantly below capacity, but this doesn't imply a belief in the other two propositions, no matter how enthusiastically James Arthur claims that it does.

His flat-economics doesn't recognise the Keynesian point that the free market isn't perfect, and can't be relied on to drag an under-performing economy out of recession or slow growth. This leaves him free to treat the whole Keynesian argument as if it were entirely irrational, which he sees as critical thinking, and the rest of us see as concocting a remarkably implausible straw man.

> The fact that it doesn't ever work--not in the first Depression either--doesn't faze 'em. Live for the moment! (and pass on the debt.)

Keynesian pump-priming wasn't tried for the first three years of the Great Depression. Hoover did try to stimulate the economy, but not on a scale that had any chance of doing anything useful, so the US economy shrank by 8% per year for three years, roughly the same rate as it shrank in the last quarter of 2008, after the sub-prime mortgage crisis had hit.

Roosevelt did stimulate the economy with the New Deal. It wasn't Keynes-inspired, and the New Dealers mostly didn't accept Keynes' theories, but it certainly used deficit-funded stimulus spending to turn the US economy around.

The "flat earth" economists that James Arthur finds credible have other explanations of what was going on, but you have to be as ideologically blinkered as James Arthur to find them even vaguely plausible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den lřrdag den 21. december 2013 22.20.33 UTC+1 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:

My task is making 150w @ 32kV with a flyback.



Right now I don't have the load device, so the

flyback voltage shoots skyward, limited (clamped)

by the FET drivers' avalanche at the prmary.



The FETs are massive and they don't mind it, but I'm

throttled back to 50w right now. At 150w the FETs

won't be as happy. It would be great to have a ~35kV

dummy load to offload most of that dissipation.



I've got a spark gap set up. It doesn't do a heckuvalot,

and it's a current sink, not a clamp. (Nice ozone though.)



Any easy suggestions?



Cheers,



James Arthur

make a zener from a whole bunch of 1000V fets/diodes in series?

-Lasse

 

[dp]

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:08:29 AM UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:23:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened dp
dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in
05d9623b-bb4a-4b54-86b0-f0aaf0f603b6@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:17:19 AM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
....
If the manufacturer's doing that, that's pretty decent field service.

Maybe they use giant mutant spiders.

Or perhaps drones, who knows .

My experience with that sort of thing is nowhere near yours,
so I thought you must be right after all and I did a search.
And apparently you are right - here is what I found:

http://www.michaelshell.org/gadgetsandfixes/keypadsiliconeoil.html

[The rubber does sweat some oil if it has not been baken
out of it by the manufacturer; that saves them the drone & spider
usage, I suppose ]
..

So that is it, cheap remotes!

;-)

Yes, the boring reality. I think we should insist on drones carrying
giant spiders to referee table tennis matches between dinos though .

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff, TGI http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/sets/72157600228621276/

 

[Don Y]

On 12/27/2013 10:45 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 5:26:55 PM UTC-5, Reinhard Zwirner wrote:
Jim Thompson schrieb:

[...]

Which is why NSA tapped Angela Merkel's cellphone>:-}

This affair has discredited the US in an extraordinarily high degree.

It's not the will of the nation, it's this government.

The stuff we hear here from Obama is indistinguishable from the
katzendrech I used to hear living across from the DDR.
And, Obama uses the IRS domestically like the Stasi, and the NSA
internationally (and internally) in a manner that is chillingly
familiar.

They've laid waste to honesty and principle in a way I've never
seen. If the government were working Obama would have been
charged and removed from office, long ago. But we've got
radicals, and they've got control.

Apologies for the NSA--it's wrong, and deeply embarrassing as an
American, and very hurtful to a valued friend.

Yes, shame on Mr Bush for starting the surveillance on Merkel back in
2002! Damn leftie!!

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Dec 2013 18:17:19 -0800 (PST)) it happened
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote in
<7a41491c-3cda-4620-b605-24e498314691@googlegroups.com>:

If the manufacturer's doing that, that's pretty decent field service.

Maybe they use giant mutant spiders.

The concensus now seems to be mutant spiders.

OK.

It is more likely than dinos,
I watched 'Dinotopia', mainly because I got facinated by a dino playing table tennis
with a human.

Amazing effects.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:23:39 -0800 (PST)) it happened dp
<dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in
<05d9623b-bb4a-4b54-86b0-f0aaf0f603b6@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:17:19 AM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
...
Back to the keyboards/keypads. The amount of oil I found was way
too large to attribute to rubber decay let alone to air pollution.

The things had been oiled by the manufacturer, I will be very
very surprised if not. Then the oil film was even and quite
sticky - it just looked like it had been put there on purpose.

And yet my experience, in more remotes than I can count, is that
if you diligently wipe away every bit of that, then clean with
alcohol, within a year or two the device quits again, and, on
reopening, the film is back, and nearly as thick as the first time.

If the manufacturer's doing that, that's pretty decent field service.

Maybe they use giant mutant spiders.

Or perhaps drones, who knows .

My experience with that sort of thing is nowhere near yours,
so I thought you must be right after all and I did a search.
And apparently you are right - here is what I found:

http://www.michaelshell.org/gadgetsandfixes/keypadsiliconeoil.html

[The rubber does sweat some oil if it has not been baken
out of it by the manufacturer; that saves them the drone & spider
usage, I suppose ]

Dimiter

So that is it, cheap remotes!
;-)

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:48:36 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<b0e25e37-e0f8-4eff-931b-39c1fe674dda@googlegroups.com>:

On Monday, December 23, 2013 8:08:37 PM UTC-8, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

Cheap, in more ways than one. Reliable, I don't think so! There is
nothing like a buckling spring keyboard. I used *one* at work for
over 16 years.

And those buckling spring things aren't the most reliable ones. The best
reliable, dirt/contamination resistant keyboards are the saturating-core
magnetic switch types. More reliable than Hall sensors,

What is unreliable about a Hall sensor?

they just
have a little toroid that stops coupling the input and output windings
(which are staples, one turn each) when the plunger-attached magnet
gets near.

 

On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:27 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 28/12/2013 1:33 PM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:16:24 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2013 2:05:10 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

The basic rules organizing a successful society should not be
subject to the whims of individual men, which is what you're defending.

Well that depends on how you define successful society and how you
define whim and how you define rules and how you define men etc...

I could quote you Jefferson on this, but, in summary, societies where
the laws are ever-changing are unstable. They're not and can't be
successful--long-term investments, loans, plans are impossible and
unwise if the rules are likely to change and take it all away.

Sadly, societies where laws don't change in response to changing reality
are equally unstable

Sadly you're unable to see the context was "the basic rules organizing a
society." Should we decide it's okay to murder, or take property
without cause, just because changing times have made those expedient?

You argue "Yes, of course." The people who'll perish losing their care
teams and insurance because of Obamacare? Of no consequence. "A few
ten thousands, for the greater good" on planet Sloman.

- the people who find themselves badly treated by
old-fashioned laws eventually get irritated enough to organise and root
and branch restructuring, usually known as a revolution. Lots of babies
get thrown out with the bathwater.

The US at the moment is stuck with a system where the top 1% of the
income distribution get pretty much 100% of the benefits of any growth
in the economy. The US Gini-index has now reached 0.45, just short of
Communist China's 0.47, and way higher than the 0.3 that characterises
most advanced industrial countries, let alone the 0.283 of Germany or
the 0.25 that characterises the Scandinavian countries.

Two parts falsehoods and one part irrelevant. As usual.

Most of those leftist talking points omit the effect of
government largesse (which runs huge), as a justification the
taking of more for ... government largesse.

The same people making that argument argue people need more
wages in the form of benefits, but exclude the value of
benefits to calculate--outraged--that wages have fallen.

If one person spends watching 30 hours more watching television a
week, and a second works those 30 extra hours instead, this is your
Genie-endorsed statistical proof-positive that person #2's raping
person #1. Oh, the injustice!

> That's fertile breeding ground for reform,

By "reform" you mean your theory of forced sharing. In a
nutshell, you'd force people who'd worked to accumulate too
much to "share," thereby encouraging them to work harder and
make more (for more "sharing"), and motivating those who
receive this bounty to work harder to improve their
situations (i.e., production) too.

The result would be that everyone has more, and the people
who didn't have as much will be permanently improved.

This would not create a corrupt society where everyone petitions
whoever decides who has too much, to plead for others' alms.

This pointedly (you'd insist) will not make a society where a rich
few patronize and control a society of dependent masses, dependent
on the elite for their tax-alms. It matters not that Obama's Great
Leap Forward has rocketed us in that unequal, unfair direction,
where outcomes are decided by decree; empirical evidence confirming
that redistribution is unfair and destructive doesn't matter.

and - in the absence of
reform - revolution.

The lottery only has a handful of winners--the Gini index must be
insane, yet people flock to it.

If the lottery were decided by "need" as determined by politicians--
your form of government--then yes, revolution would promptly follow.

For example, suppose you promise an industry they'll have a certain
number and selection of people, at certain prices, and by a certain
date. They work up stats, offer products, then you change the mix,
the numbers, and the dates...said industry's cooked.

If the mix changes too fast, the industry may be cooked. In reality the
mix of people available, their skills and what they expect to be paid
for their skills is constantly evolving, and industry has to adapt or
die, as it has to adapt to the change in demand for it's product or
products. Technology keeps on evolving, and industry, like society, has
to evolve to exploit the new capabilities.

So, when Barack Obama guarantees the insurance companies a certain mix,
then delivers a radically different, money-losing mix instead, in large
part by changing the rules ex post facto, it's the insurance companies'
fault? For following the ruler's rules, death?

(So they'll bail it out, that's next. Mark my words, but not until
after the midterm elections.)

When Barack "You can keep your plan" Obama decides who can stay;
who gets fined and who doesn't; whose privacy is protected and
whose violated; whose property may be expropriated--and to whose
benefit--etc., this is lawless.

Obama did not author the PPACA, Liz Fowler did.

Regardless of who wrote it, O says it's a law, yet he breaks it
constantly.


In your somewhat predictable opinion. Obama is a Democrat, so he must be
breaking some law or other.

Naturally you're free (and inclined) to dismiss without understanding
even the simplest objective facts that exceed your understanding,
according to your prejudices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-can-obama-write-his-own-laws/2013/08/15/81920842-05df-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

Nixon, who was a Republican, seems to escape
your attention.

Such ignorance; it's truly magnificent.

Nixon resigned in a nick of time to evade impeachment and trial
on accusations of using the IRS against political foes, among
other charges.

IOW, Nixon was driven out of office for the mere suspicion of just
one of the items on Obama's laundry list of actual misdeeds.

Merely "suspending" one law for policy rather than constitutional
reasons is ample cause for removal. Or do you support sheriffs
"suspending" laws against false arrest? Or "suspending" laws
of privacy, property, free-speech, or self-incrimination?

As to Liz Fowler: if what you say is true, we can all rest assured
she's a moron. (But, I think the Health Control Act is actually
the work of a cavalcade of dunces, including Max Baucus and Ezekiel
Emmanuel. It reads like a pre-teen code-fest.)

You haven't given the numerous lobbyists involved the credit they
deserve. The fact that their activities weren't illegal is unfortunate.
That you pretend to be unaware that they were active is implausible
(like much of what you post).

Feel free to list all the lobbyists and document their contributions.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:38:32 PM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 28/12/2013 5:55 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:


snip



I think it's more basic. #1, they don't understand it, #2, they're afraid.

Think about that--under Barack Obama, and all his promises of openness and
big, friendly Big Borg Brother--we now live in a country where the people
are afraid of their government. Indeed, our friends across the world are
afraid of it too. And probably should be.

People across the world have been afraid of the US for quite some time
now. "Banana republics" preceded the CIA-orchestrated replacement of
Mossadeq in Iran - by the Shah, who was a bit too far towards your side
of the political spectrum to last - as was Pinochet in Chile, ditto.

McCarthy is the poster-child for far-right-thinking people of your
description, and anybody not afraid of his reincarnation in the US
hasn't been paying enough attention to Tea Party propaganda.

A magnificent display.

So, if Barack "You can keep your plan" Obama spies on Merkel--and
defends it in court[1]--it's the Tea Party's fault. Or Joe McCarthy.

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/nsa-phone-surveillance-ruling-101569.html

That's Billiant, just Billiant.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 3:29:43 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:

On 12/27/2013 10:45 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

They've laid waste to honesty and principle in a way I've never
seen. If the government were working Obama would have been
charged and removed from office, long ago. But we've got
radicals, and they've got control.

Apologies for the NSA--it's wrong, and deeply embarrassing as an
American, and very hurtful to a valued friend.

Yes, shame on Mr Bush for starting the surveillance on Merkel back in
2002! Damn leftie!!

G.W. Bush greatly expanded government and spent irresponsibly,
Obama-lite. A few decades prior he'd have been a Democrat, but
today they've swung far to the redistribution side, whatever
that is.

But to your comment, I don't give a damn what party they are--it's
wrong. Obama's amped it up orders of magnitude, which means he
embraces it. And domestically.

O and his Democrats are for an Orwellian surveillance, and against
civil rights. Republicans aren't all that far behind.

If we'd had this kind of surveillance in 1776, all the traitors
would've been rounded up and hung, and America would never have
happened.


James Arthur

 

On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:50:40 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> People were saying the same thing about the first peace time federal income tax, and PPACA is not nearly as earth shattering. Get used to it, it's here to stay.

The PPACA is the theory that the government can make the People
do anything. Not just regulate what citizens do, but compel them
to actively do things, contract private parties against their will,
etc. And, by lying to them to pass it if necessary.

It's a far bigger deal than mere income tax.

 

[Don Kuenz]

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2013-12-27, No News <news@nulstep.plus.com> wrote:

About a week ago Don Kuenz asked a question about relays.

Does anyone in here consider a relay to be an active device?
A 1-liner on why, or why not, would probably be interesting.
More if you feel like it!

yes, above unity power gain implies acive.

An entry for "active device" is missing from my _IEEE Standard
Dictionary_. _The Art of Electronics_ mentions, in passing, "The
transistor is our most important example of an 'active' component."
That's it. My textbooks also contain no definition so it seems that one
must use the Inet to find a working definition.

An active device is any type of circuit component with the
ability to electrically control electron flow (electricity
controlling electricity).

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_1/2.html

A relay certainly controls electron flow as much as a transistor switch.
As mentioned previously, _The Art_ says that a transistor is an active
component. Ergo, my vote on the matter is also, "Yes."

--
__
__/ \
/ \__/
\__/ Don Kuenz
/ \__
\__/ \
\__/

 

On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:23:39 PM UTC-5, dp wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:17:19 AM UTC+2, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

And yet my experience, in more remotes than I can count, is that
if you diligently wipe away every bit of that, then clean with
alcohol, within a year or two the device quits again, and, on
reopening, the film is back, and nearly as thick as the first time.

If the manufacturer's doing that, that's pretty decent field service.

Maybe they use giant mutant spiders.

Or perhaps drones, who knows .

Giant mutant spider drones are the worst.

My experience with that sort of thing is nowhere near yours,
so I thought you must be right after all and I did a search.
And apparently you are right - here is what I found:

http://www.michaelshell.org/gadgetsandfixes/keypadsiliconeoil.html

[The rubber does sweat some oil if it has not been baken
out of it by the manufacturer; that saves them the drone & spider
usage, I suppose ]

Nice link. And, it suggests a cure. That might well be worth
doing--baking an insert the next time I have one out, to avoid
having to repeat it.

I'm not big on servicing remotes--a waste of time--but it's a
bigger waste of time to throw away the one thing you've finally
found that's any good, only to trade it for another case of the
same oily mess.

Thanks.

James Arthur

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2013-12-28, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

On 12/27/2013 3:58 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

The nasty thing with that configuration is that the inductor will also
carry DC, requiring a quite big choke with an air gap (size comparable
to the output transformer in audio applications). Putting the
inductance prior to the rectifier and you do not have to handle the DC
current and no air gap needed.


If the inductor is sized to carry the peak current without saturating,
why does it matter which side of the rectifier?
What am I missing?

wind-up

--
For a good time: install ntp

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---