OT: Public transport...

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:

On May 2, 2023 at 10:40:06 AM MST, \"Ed P\" wrote
WVb4M.556642$Ldj8....@fx47.iad>:
On 5/2/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:


I rode the bus when I was going to college. There was one but that left
5 minutes after I got out of class. There wasn\'t another for 95 minutes.

What can we conclude from that?

Choose one:
Public transportation will never work because you have to wait 90
minutes for a bus
or
If more people took the bus they would run them more frequently so the
wait is minimal. Very convenient and cost effective.
Right. And to get it going it may need to run at a loss... though that \"loss\"
really is still a gain for society and the environment.

The \"environment\"??? How is it good for the environment to be running a bus with three people on it?

I used to commute to work on the bus when I worked in Washington, DC. In the suburbs the busses ran 1 per hour. They were not empty, or nearly so. Routes with empty buses would have fewer runs or be dropped altogether. It costs a *lot* of money to run a bus and they emit a lot of pollution, in several respects. They are big, noisy and clog the roads, preventing the more nimble vehicles from getting where they need to go. I recall not being able to use the right hand lane, because you had to stop everywhere they bus did. Trying to get into another lane was difficult from the traffic. So they were a PITA, and largely wasted a driving lane on many routes. At least those routes were actually moving people.

I think it was Churchill who said, \"democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.\" Cars are like that too. As we convert to electric, at least the pollution aspect will be greatly improved.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by, \'though that \"loss\" really is still a gain for society\'? What are the gains, other than the tangible things like pollution and cost? When people mention \"society\" in conversations like this, it usually means they don\'t actually have anything to say.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 1:19:56 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 2:01:43 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
On May 2, 2023 at 10:40:06 AM MST, \"Ed P\" wrote <WVb4M.556642$Ldj8....@fx47.iad>:
On 5/2/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

I rode the bus when I was going to college. There was one but that left
5 minutes after I got out of class. There wasn\'t another for 95 minutes.

What can we conclude from that?

Choose one:
Public transportation will never work because you have to wait 90
minutes for a bus
or
If more people took the bus they would run them more frequently so the
wait is minimal. Very convenient and cost effective.

Right. And to get it going it may need to run at a loss... though that \"loss\" really is still a gain for society and the environment.

The \"environment\"??? How is it good for the environment to be running a bus with three people on it?

I grew up with electric trolley buses. They don\'t squirt submicron carbon fragments into the urban atmosphere and people\'s lungs, as diesel buses do.

I used to commute to work on the bus when I worked in Washington, DC. In the suburbs the busses ran 1 per hour. They were not empty, or nearly so. Routes with empty buses would have fewer runs or be dropped altogether. It costs a *lot* of money to run a bus and they emit a lot of pollution, in several respects. They are big, noisy and clog the roads, preventing the more nimble vehicles from getting where they need to go. I recall not being able to use the right hand lane, because you had to stop everywhere they bus did. Trying to get into another lane was difficult from the traffic. So they were a PITA, and largely wasted a driving lane on many routes. At least those routes were actually moving people.

I think it was Churchill who said, \"democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.\" Cars are like that too. As we convert to electric, at least the pollution aspect will be greatly improved.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by, \'though that \"loss\" really is still a gain for society\'? What are the gains, other than the tangible things like pollution and cost? When people mention \"society\" in conversations like this, it usually means they don\'t actually have anything to say.

In America the word \"society\" comes with an implicit link to \"socialism\" and the rich people who own and control newspapers - Rupert Murdoch comes mind - have work hard to convince the American public that \"socialism\" equals \"communisn\" which isn\'t actually true.

The social advantage of public transport in big cities is that you can\'t devote enough of the inner city area to roads and parking to make private cars are viable mode of commuting. If you want people to commute into to centre of city to work, you have to provide public transport, ideally underground.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 May 2023 03:47:03 +0200, \"Carlos E.R.\"
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-05 03:26, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 May 2023 22:07:19 +0200, \"Carlos E.R.\"
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-04 14:47, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 May 2023 00:13:38 +0200, \"Carlos E.R.\"
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-03 23:43, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 14:27:14 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-02 07:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Can\'t we just get rid of public transport?  I asked Google Maps for a
route from my house to somewhere I want to go on holiday.

2 hours by car, 6 hours by public transport.  Dafuq?

Even more ridiculous, 6 hours by public transport, 7 hours by bicycle!
Public transport is hardly faster than a bicycle!

1 day on foot!  Trains go a whole 4 times faster than me walking!

Just close them down.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gkpnorzkr4v3w07/transport.jpg?dl=0

A taxi is also Public Transport.

No, as only one person uses it.

Not true. They have a plate that says [SP], that is, Public Service.
Same as Buses.

https://images.app.goo.gl/gmyVfJFcPCGkahCq8

My impression has been that in some places, eastern Europe maybe, Greece
maybe, public transport refers to carriers of many people, and in the

I got mixed up and I defined the first part wrong. For them, it refers
to systems owned by the government.

USA the term used is public transportation and it refers to any carrier
open to the public.

Yes, that\'s the basic idea. A means of transport that is open to the
public, in some manner. A bus has (normally) a fixed route and time
table, a taxi is open to the client. Both are owned by somebody else,
and are subject to regulations.


If Spain and the USA are more like each other, that\'s fine with me.

I tried to discuss this once on TRip Advisor but got nowhere.

Because they were getting plenty of tourists from the USA and I\'m sure
when they said that public transport didn\'t run to certain places or at
certain times, I\'m sure half of the Americans didn\'t understand that
taxis were still available. I wanted the local posters to be more
clear, but they didn\'t get it.


Ah. I see.

Of course, to me, \"Public\" is not the Government. Ridiculous.

Another example is the public phone. Phone booths all over the place
were referred to as public phones, and the few that are left still are,
even the government didn\'t own any of them. They were owned by one or
another phone company but meant to be used by the public.

Public parks are almost always owned by the government, but that does
not mean public phones and public transsportation has to be because
ownership is now what makes them public. In fact if there is some
forest or park-like land that is owned by the government but people are
not allowed in for some reason, it\'s not a public park, even if the
government owns it. There is such a place near me, Soldiers Delight
Natural Environment Area, owned by the state of Maryland, but part of it
(the most interesting part) is closed to visitors bedause they are
afraid we\'ll step on some endangered plant. That part is not public.

 

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 07 May 2023 15:20:38 -0400, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 5 May 2023 03:47:03 +0200, \"Carlos E.R.\"
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-05 03:26, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 May 2023 22:07:19 +0200, \"Carlos E.R.\"
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-04 14:47, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Thu, 4 May 2023 00:13:38 +0200, \"Carlos E.R.\"
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-03 23:43, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 14:27:14 +0100, Carlos E.R.
robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

On 2023-05-02 07:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
Can\'t we just get rid of public transport?  I asked Google Maps for a
route from my house to somewhere I want to go on holiday.

2 hours by car, 6 hours by public transport.  Dafuq?

Even more ridiculous, 6 hours by public transport, 7 hours by bicycle!
Public transport is hardly faster than a bicycle!

1 day on foot!  Trains go a whole 4 times faster than me walking!

Just close them down.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gkpnorzkr4v3w07/transport.jpg?dl=0

A taxi is also Public Transport.

No, as only one person uses it.

Not true. They have a plate that says [SP], that is, Public Service.
Same as Buses.

https://images.app.goo.gl/gmyVfJFcPCGkahCq8

My impression has been that in some places, eastern Europe maybe, Greece
maybe, public transport refers to carriers of many people, and in the

I got mixed up and I defined the first part wrong. For them, it refers
to systems owned by the government.

USA the term used is public transportation and it refers to any carrier
open to the public.

Yes, that\'s the basic idea. A means of transport that is open to the
public, in some manner. A bus has (normally) a fixed route and time
table, a taxi is open to the client. Both are owned by somebody else,
and are subject to regulations.


If Spain and the USA are more like each other, that\'s fine with me.

I tried to discuss this once on TRip Advisor but got nowhere.

Because they were getting plenty of tourists from the USA and I\'m sure
when they said that public transport didn\'t run to certain places or at
certain times, I\'m sure half of the Americans didn\'t understand that
taxis were still available. I wanted the local posters to be more
clear, but they didn\'t get it.


Ah. I see.

Of course, to me, \"Public\" is not the Government. Ridiculous.

Another example is the public phone. Phone booths all over the place
were referred to as public phones, and the few that are left still are,
even the government didn\'t own any of them. They were owned by one or

Even though the government....

another phone company but meant to be used by the public.

Public parks are almost always owned by the government, but that does
not mean public phones and public transsportation has to be because
ownership is now what makes them public. In fact if there is some

NOT what makes them public. Darn.

forest or park-like land that is owned by the government but people are
not allowed in for some reason, it\'s not a public park, even if the
government owns it. There is such a place near me, Soldiers Delight
Natural Environment Area, owned by the state of Maryland, but part of it
(the most interesting part) is closed to visitors bedause they are
afraid we\'ll step on some endangered plant. That part is not public.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Fri, 05 May 2023 15:50:24 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 5, 2023 at 5:35:30 AM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
op.14g09gzwmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Thu, 04 May 2023 06:11:02 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
op.14eak1srmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Wed, 03 May 2023 20:59:34 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 2023 at 11:07:38 AM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
op.14dra0rkmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Tue, 02 May 2023 19:01:33 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 2, 2023 at 10:40:06 AM MST, \"Ed P\" wrote
WVb4M.556642$Ldj8.56651@fx47.iad>:

On 5/2/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:


I rode the bus when I was going to college. There was one but that left
5 minutes after I got out of class. There wasn\'t another for 95 minutes.

What can we conclude from that?

Choose one:
Public transportation will never work because you have to wait 90
minutes for a bus
or
If more people took the bus they would run them more frequently so the
wait is minimal. Very convenient and cost effective.

Right. And to get it going it may need to run at a loss... though that \"loss\"
really is still a gain for society and the environment.

Anything running at a loss is stupid.

It is a loss only from a very myopic view point. The big picture matters.

People won\'t use buses just because there\'s more of them.

If they are clean and convenient, why not? They do in many cities.

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

You challenge of understanding why others make different choices often amuses
me.

No matter the reason, people clearly ARE making that choice.

Because they\'re idiots.

They avoid them because they have more convenient cars. Buses are for the
poor. Let them walk.

And this is why Libertarianism cannot work. It actively pushes inefficiencies
which make a society less capable of competing.

It does not. If everyone has freedom of choice, they will choose the cheapest
(most efficient).

But you do not back making the cheaper choice even available.

Let\'s include the cost of harm in the cost of gas... and vehicles. That might
do it.

Diesel buses letting out choking smoke....

I once saw one with an advert plastered on the back saying \"greener travel\". Half the back of the bus was covered in soot.

But let\'s all scrounge off others shall we?

Let\'s invest in our own society so we are ALL better off.

You invest in a company, because it gives you money back when it does well.

And we can do the same with our society. Invest so ALL are bette off.

No, you make others better off, not yourself.

When everyone is better off, or at least darn near everyone, how do you figure
you are not included?

You don\'t make everyone better off, you just share the money around so everyone is equally poor, with 50% of people not lifting a finger.

You don\'t invest in a society. You just feed the lazy and useless, creating a
population of weak people. Stop using silly libtard buzzwords.

None of what you said makes sense. Why would everyone being better off lead to
anything like that?

Because you\'re feeding those who aren\'t contributing.

Buses and other public transportation is not feeding anyone. They do not have
snack bars!

Trains do.

But with feeding... sure, those that are disabled or out of luck should not
starve -- and when they do society as a whole suffers. Crime rates go up, for
example.

If they starved to death, they would save society money.

Typical Jew.

Not sure what the means, other than antisemitic nonsense.

Aww boo hoo, the religious nutters get upset when we make fun of them. Anyone
believing in god needs removed from the gene pool.

I said nothing of being a religious nutter -- I noted your bigotry.

You objected to me having a go at Jews.

I objected to bigotry.

Bigotry is just logic.

Jews are the biggest religious nuts out there. They start as much war as
Muslims. They think turning on a lightswitch on the sabbath is \"work\".

I am Jewish -- and atheist -- and do no such thing.

Because you rebelled against your race\'s stupidity. If you\'d all done that in WW2....

 

[Snit]

On Jun 3, 2023 at 3:18:49 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
<op.15zhlnbymvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

> Bigotry is just logic.

This is an insane claim.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:18:58 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Fri, 05 May 2023 15:50:24 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 5, 2023 at 5:35:30 AM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote <op.14g09....@ryzen.home>:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 06:11:02 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 3, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote <op.14eak...@ryzen.home>:
On Wed, 03 May 2023 20:59:34 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 3, 2023 at 11:07:38 AM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote <op.14dra...@ryzen.home>:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 19:01:33 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 2, 2023 at 10:40:06 AM MST, \"Ed P\" wrote <WVb4M.556642$Ldj8....@fx47.iad>:
On 5/2/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

<snip>

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

You challenge of understanding why others make different choices often amuses me.

No matter the reason, people clearly ARE making that choice.

Because they\'re idiots.

Commander Kinsey likes to think that. He can understand that other people in different situations (that he doesn\'t understand) are making choices that he doesn\'t understand, but he\'s too much of an idiot to work out why they might be doing that.

They avoid them because they have more convenient cars. Buses are for the poor. Let them walk.

And this is why Libertarianism cannot work. It actively pushes inefficiencies
which make a society less capable of competing.

It does not. If everyone has freedom of choice, they will choose the cheapest (most efficient).

For them. If every body has a car, hardly anybody can park at popular destinations,

But you do not back making the cheaper choice even available.

Let\'s include the cost of harm in the cost of gas... and vehicles. That might do it.

Diesel buses letting out choking smoke....

Trolley busses powered by overhead wires don\'t. Electric buses driven by batteries don\'t.

> I once saw one with an advert plastered on the back saying \"greener travel\". Half the back of the bus was covered in soot.

With voters like you, the locla council isn\'t going to be very bright.

But let\'s all scrounge off others shall we?

Let\'s invest in our own society so we are ALL better off.

You invest in a company, because it gives you money back when it does well.

And we can do the same with our society. Invest so ALL are better off..

No, you make others better off, not yourself.

ALL does include you.

When everyone is better off, or at least darn near everyone, how do you figure you are not included?

You don\'t make everyone better off, you just share the money around so everyone is equally poor, with 50% of people not lifting a finger.

If you were running the scheme it might well work that badly. People like you get voted out.

> >>>> You don\'t invest in a society. You just feed the lazy and useless, creating a population of weak people. Stop using silly libtard buzzwords.

Stop rolling out fatuous right wing assertions.

None of what you said makes sense. Why would everyone being better off lead to anything like that?

Because you\'re feeding those who aren\'t contributing.

Buses and other public transportation is not feeding anyone. They do not have snack bars!

Trains do.

But you have to pay for what you eat.

But with feeding... sure, those that are disabled or out of luck should not starve -- and when they do society as a whole suffers. Crime rates go up, for example.

If they starved to death, they would save society money.

If they were fed well so that they could work, society could use their services - it take effort to get useful work, out of the less able, but it can be done.

Typical Jew.

Not sure what the means, other than antisemitic nonsense.

Aww boo hoo, the religious nutters get upset when we make fun of them. Anyone believing in god needs removed from the gene pool.

It used to be very popular.If you appled that test a generation or two back you wouldn\'t have gene pool.

I said nothing of being a religious nutter -- I noted your bigotry.

You objected to me having a go at Jews.

I objected to bigotry.

Bigotry is just logic.

Bigots do like to think that.

> >> Jews are the biggest religious nuts out there. They start as much war as Muslims. They think turning on a lightswitch on the sabbath is \"work\".

Some ultra-orthodox Jews are that silly. They don\'t define the behavior of all (or even most) of the followers of the religion.

I am Jewish -- and atheist -- and do no such thing.

Because you rebelled against your race\'s stupidity. If you\'d all done that in WW2....

Judaism is a religion, not a race, even if the Nazi\'s were silly enough to think otherwise. They couldn\'t do genome sequencing back then, but it was well known to be a silly idea anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Peeler]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 00:09:55 GMT, Shit the git, the senile troll and
troll-feeding senile asshole, ALSO trolling as David Brooks, blathered
again:


> This is an insane claim.

It\'s a TROLL, just like YOU are a TROLLING and TROLL-FEEDING senile asshole,
Shit the Git!

--
Glenn Hall in comp.os.linux.advocacy about Shit the git:
\"That person is like a constantly running toilet that won\'t stop. Does he
ever stop talking about UI consistency? No matter what anyone replies, he
adds a few more branches to the spider web as it grows and grows. It\'s a
waste of time.\" 31 Oct 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/c8dd8a244fe1eb2c

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 05 May 2023 13:35:30 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\"
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2023 06:11:02 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
op.14eak1srmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Wed, 03 May 2023 20:59:34 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 3, 2023 at 11:07:38 AM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote
op.14dra0rkmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

On Tue, 02 May 2023 19:01:33 +0100, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 2, 2023 at 10:40:06 AM MST, \"Ed P\" wrote
WVb4M.556642$Ldj8.56651@fx47.iad>:

On 5/2/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:


I rode the bus when I was going to college. There was one but that left
5 minutes after I got out of class. There wasn\'t another for 95 minutes.

What can we conclude from that?

Choose one:
Public transportation will never work because you have to wait 90
minutes for a bus
or
If more people took the bus they would run them more frequently so the
wait is minimal. Very convenient and cost effective.

Right. And to get it going it may need to run at a loss... though that \"loss\"
really is still a gain for society and the environment.

Anything running at a loss is stupid.

It is a loss only from a very myopic view point. The big picture matters.

People won\'t use buses just because there\'s more of them.

If they are clean and convenient, why not? They do in many cities.

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

They avoid them because they have more convenient cars. Buses are for the
poor. Let them walk.

And this is why Libertarianism cannot work. It actively pushes inefficiencies
which make a society less capable of competing.

It does not. If everyone has freedom of choice, they will choose the cheapest (most efficient).

No. Living in a tin-roof shack in Mexico is the cheapest (most
efficient), and a few people do that. More people pay $3000 a month
for a 1 bedroom apartment in a big city.

But let\'s all scrounge off others shall we?

Let\'s invest in our own society so we are ALL better off.

You invest in a company, because it gives you money back when it does well.

And we can do the same with our society. Invest so ALL are bette off.

No, you make others better off, not yourself.

Natural selection does not favor altruists.

You don\'t invest in a society. You just feed the lazy and useless, creating a
population of weak people. Stop using silly libtard buzzwords.

None of what you said makes sense. Why would everyone being better off lead to
anything like that?

Because you\'re feeding those who aren\'t contributing.

Typical Jew.

Not sure what the means, other than antisemitic nonsense.

Aww boo hoo, the religious nutters get upset when we make fun of them. Anyone
believing in god needs removed from the gene pool.

I said nothing of being a religious nutter -- I noted your bigotry.

You objected to me having a go at Jews. Jews are the biggest religious nuts out there. They start as much war as Muslims. They think turning on a lightswitch on the sabbath is \"work\".

The majority of Jews are not full orthodox. Besides, it\'s good to have
something to believe in.

When Israel declared a state, with UN sanction, it was a small
parliamentary democracy. And was attacked the next day from all
directions by Muslims. Now it\'s a bigger parliamentary democracy.

One problem, as usual, is women. Israel likes women and its neighbors
mostly don\'t. Life would be simpler without women. Much simpler.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:22:25 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 05 May 2023 13:35:30 +0100, \"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2023 06:11:02 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 3, 2023 at 6:04:03 PM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote <op.14eak...@ryzen.home>:
On Wed, 03 May 2023 20:59:34 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 3, 2023 at 11:07:38 AM MST, \"\"Commander Kinsey\"\" wrote <op.14dra...@ryzen.home>:
On Tue, 02 May 2023 19:01:33 +0100, Snit <brock.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 2, 2023 at 10:40:06 AM MST, \"Ed P\" wrote <WVb4M.556642$Ldj8....@fx47.iad>:
On 5/2/2023 12:08 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:

<snip>

And we can do the same with our society. Invest so ALL are better off.

No, you make others better off, not yourself.

Natural selection does not favor altruists.

Actually, it does, provided that your altruism mostly favours close relatives. Human evolution clearly has clearly been driven by that.

Not everybody gets the full set of human genes - Commander Kinsey has been short-changed more than most, and John Larkin doesn\'t seem to have got a many as he should have - but part of the full kit keeps track of people who aren\'t as helpful as they should be, and puts them in places where they can get edited out.

You don\'t invest in a society. You just feed the lazy and useless, creating a
population of weak people. Stop using silly libtard buzzwords.

None of what you said makes sense. Why would everyone being better off lead to
anything like that?

Because you\'re feeding those who aren\'t contributing.

Typical Jew.

Not sure what the means, other than antisemitic nonsense.

Aww boo hoo, the religious nutters get upset when we make fun of them.. Anyone
believing in god needs removed from the gene pool.

I said nothing of being a religious nutter -- I noted your bigotry.

You objected to me having a go at Jews. Jews are the biggest religious nuts out there. They start as much war as Muslims. They think turning on a lightswitch on the sabbath is \"work\".

The majority of Jews are not full orthodox. Besides, it\'s good to have something to believe in.

When Israel declared a state, with UN sanction, it was a small parliamentary democracy. And was attacked the next day from all directions by Muslims. Now it\'s a bigger parliamentary democracy.

One problem, as usual, is women. Israel likes women and its neighbors mostly don\'t. Life would be simpler without women. Much simpler.

Non-existent after a single generation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?

--
Cindy Hamilton

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
<hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?

More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill
high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution
are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more
autism.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.

Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don\'t go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn\'t make them any smarter. You won\'t get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.

There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.

Which one of John Larkin\'s half-witted misconceptions is in play here isn\'t obvious - but one of them clearly is. He has quite a few.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 15.48.47 UTC+2 skrev Anthony William Sloman:

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.
Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don\'t go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn\'t make them any smarter. You won\'t get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.

There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-geeky-couples-more-likely-to-have-kids-with-autism/

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 12:03:03 AM UTC+10, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 15.48.47 UTC+2 skrev Anthony William Sloman:
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:41:18 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.
Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don\'t go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn\'t make them any smarter. You won\'t get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.

There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-geeky-couples-more-likely-to-have-kids-with-autism/

That\'s England. Engineers have low social status in the UK, and people with low social status have fewer options when it comes to mating and marrying.
I did work as an engineer in the UK, but I\'d met and hooked up with my wife in Australia while I was still in transition from being an academic chemist, so I\'m not speaking from personal experience. I did end up marrying her in the UK, but it\'s not relevant evidence.

Autistic partners aren\'t going to be preferred partners, so UK engineers are more likely to get stuck with them in the UK.

Simon Baron-Cohen is Jewish - he\'s Sasha Baron-Cohen\'s uncle. Borat\'s uncle ought to have been conscious of that, but it wouldn\'t sell well in the Scientific American.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 15.48.47 UTC+2 skrev Anthony William Sloman:
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:41:18?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.
Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don\'t go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn\'t make them any smarter. You won\'t get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.

There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-geeky-couples-more-likely-to-have-kids-with-autism/

That\'s paywalled. I used to subscribe to SciAm until they became
nonsense. \"The Amateur Scientist\" series was great.

Autism is estimated to be about 50% heritable. And people on the
spectrum tend to mate. We sure did.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 17.08.40 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 15.48.47 UTC+2 skrev Anthony William Sloman:
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:41:18?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.
Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don\'t go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn\'t make them any smarter. You won\'t get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.

There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-geeky-couples-more-likely-to-have-kids-with-autism/
That\'s paywalled.

https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/publications/download.php?id=42289

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 04:41:00 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hamilton@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?

More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill
high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution
are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more
autism.

This paper estimates 83%.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2654804

People are social creatures and a tribe probably benefits from having
a bit of the autism traits in its gene pool. But MIT and San Francisco
distort the historic concentration of the related genes, so spectrum-y
people have a higher probability of mating with similar types. That\'s
not necessarily bad.

I accidentally found a bunch of youtube vids by autistic and ADHD and
ADD people. Many make the interesting argument that not all such
variations are \"disorders.\" Personally, I think that most people are
too influenced by social effects, which is why we have lame circuit
designs and flame threads and wars.

Mo works with autistic kids. Severely affected ones can be damaged,
rolling around on the floor and screaming and not talking. But many
mild cases can be very talented.

Google famous autistic people

https://behavioral-innovations.com/blog/20-famous-people-with-autism-spectrum-disorder-asd/

 

[Peeler]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 03:22:06 -0700, John Larkin, another obviously brain
dead, troll-feeding senile asshole, blathered:

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

Why should the troll \"think\" about anything, you troll-feeding abnormal
senile cretin?

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 08:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 17.08.40 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
lang...@fonz.dk> wrote:

søndag den 4. juni 2023 kl. 15.48.47 UTC+2 skrev Anthony William Sloman:
On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 9:41:18?PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jun 2023 11:23:28 GMT, Cindy Hamilton
hami...@invalid.com> wrote:

On 2023-06-04, John Larkin <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

Nothing is more convenient than a car. City folk are morons. Why live there?

Lots of reasons. Better food, better medical care, better jobs, better
women. Think about the evolutionary issues.

I get excellent food, medical care, and jobs in a midwestern college
town. You couldn\'t pay me to live in a city.

What does \"better women\" even mean?
More options. Cities and college towns attract and concentrate all
sorts of odd and smart people, so each of us has a better chance of
meeting our best mate than we might in a small town. A college town
has many of the aspects of (some) cities: good food, good coffee,
smart people, lots of interaction.

Evolutionarily, concentration of people, especially into high-skill high-cost areas, means that the extremes of the normal distribution are more likely to meet and mate. So we get more geniuses and more autism.
Why autism? Some autistic people can be smart, and the fact that they don\'t go in for social interaction may mean that they spend more time being smart, but that doesn\'t make them any smarter. You won\'t get more of them in university towns, and they are less likely to meet compatible partners - which is a social activity - or mate.

There no mechanism that is likely to deliver more autistic off-spring.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-geeky-couples-more-likely-to-have-kids-with-autism/
That\'s paywalled.

https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/publications/download.php?id=42289

Cool, especially about engineers, preferring email to talking.

Stanford and the Apple campus are both good sites for associative
mating.

My next-door neighbors are from different eastern european countries;
their only common language is English. Their little girl is awesome;
maybe I\'ll teach her some electronics. They met when both worked for
google. Google is a geek magnet.

How many people here are on the spectrum?