If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.

Here are some thoughts....

anti-gravity drives
hand-held laser weapons
cloaking devices
speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
quantum computers that can reason and think.
robots that can be mistaken for humans.
....any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
Gods?

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:

>If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?

Knapped stone points, sinew lashings, and fish-skin glue?

-- 
Rich Webb     Norfolk, VA

HardySpicer wrote:

> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?

Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.

> 
> Here are some thoughts....
> 
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What an idiocy.

So-called modern civilization is based exclusively on the availability 
of the cheap oil.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

HardySpicer wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> 
> Here are some thoughts....
> 
> anti-gravity drives

No theorical basis - just speculation.

> hand-held laser weapons

> cloaking devices

Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.

> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.

Why would you want them to be hand-held?

> quantum computers that can reason and think.

Unlike most humans.

Sylvia.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> [snip]
>> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?
> 
> Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.
> 

Which you won't. Damned arrogant deities - who do you think you are anyway?

Sylvia.

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> [snip]
>> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?
> 
> Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.
> 
This has already been predicted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

On Jul 24, 7:02=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
> Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.
>
>
>
> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> > anti-gravity drives
> > hand-held laser weapons
> > cloaking devices
> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> > Gods?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What an idiocy.
>
> So-called modern civilization is based exclusively on the availability
> of the cheap oil.
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

We will find an answer - we always do..

On Jul 25, 12:14=A0am, don <don> wrote:
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> > HardySpicer wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?
>
> > Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.
>
> This has already been predicted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DizQB2-Km=
iic

wow!  what a throwback.  i actually remember when this came out on the
radio.  looks like they were lip-syncing it.  sounded just like the
studio version.

boy were we hokey in the 60s.  (or was it the early 70s?)  some of it
was good.

i saw the fireworks here in Boston/Cambridge last july 4, and they had
Neil Diamond featured singing Sweet Caroline.  he may be once have
been rich and famous (as in "Has Been"), but i couldn't help be
embarrassed listening to it.  they even needed to kill another couple
of minutes so he did an ad-hoc reprise of the refrain of the same
song.  how embarrassing.

oh well.

r b-j

(identified in South Park as Aging Hippie Liberal Douche.  i wear my
ponytail proudly.)

HardySpicer wrote:
> 
[snip]
> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?

Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.

-- 
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.
                -- Walt Kelly, "Pogo"

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:

>If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
>Here are some thoughts....
>
>anti-gravity drives

  Mag-lev maybe... at best. Mag-Lev with a light air whisper push.
Braking poses issues, however.

>hand-held laser weapons

  A Plasma pulser or little ball lightning gun sounds more feasible.

>cloaking devices

  No need.  Too labor intensive to implement on anything other than a
flat panel.  Eventhat idea is a tough nut to crack.   A single viewpoint
is easy to falsify an image for.  Being able to correctly falsify the
image for any observer from any viewpoint would require some
nano-tubemirror array or such.  For any electronic process, the data
would be beyond grasp, as in near infinite even for a single flat panel
demo.  Won't likely get much pursuit due to no ROI ever until success,
and even then, it is only a proto.  We have panels that allow a wide
angle of view,but it is only for a single image, and even that one has a
huge amount of data.  Just think of the need for that panel to make a
different image depending on the viewpoint of the observer. That would by
definition have an infinite number of images that would need to be
rendered each time the panel is placed somewhere.  So it cannot be data
based. It would have to be purely optical, and I do not see much chance
of that either. Any animal with an eye could spot the flaw(s).

>speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.

  Translator microbes already exist on the other side of the Universe.

  No... really... All you need is your handheld MP3 player/movie
player/picture viewer/online browsing device.  And whatever makes the
televideophone on Warehouse 13 work

  Oh wait!  we already have that! The PSP! (minus the videophone).
Oh yeah... it plays games too.  All we need added to it is one that will
play mame games really well...  and the videophone thing.

>quantum computers that can reason and think.

 Although they too already exist far away, we are getting close to a few
quantum realities a little closer to home...

>robots that can be mistaken for humans.

 Never happen. No need. Impractical cost. Zero applications unless
flawless, which will never happen. If man gets any lazier, everyone will
die the first time they have to exert themselves, getting out of the way
of a runaway doggie on the sidewalk.

>...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>Gods?

  I think we all eat a big hunk of Galactic Arm Debris on 12/20/2012.


  The End

Rich Webb wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
> <gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> 
> Knapped stone points, sinew lashings, and fish-skin glue?

Yep. And when the next ice age comes, the few remaining humans will seek
shelter in the only warm place left on earth. A system of caves our
ancestors told us through their mythology is called Yucca.

It must be a holy place, what with that strange blue glow, the warmth
and all those indecipherable holy symbols.

-- 
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has
temporarily been turned off.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:51:45 -0400, Rich Webb
<bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
><gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
>Knapped stone points, sinew lashings, and fish-skin glue?


 A nice, modern billiard table.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:02:28 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.


 Still want to be a pimp, eh?

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.

 Not if they strafe.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:07:12 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

>HardySpicer wrote:
>> 
>[snip]
>> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?
>
>Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.

  Trust me, it *would* be their choice, and they would choose a different
life form from a different world.

Bart! wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
>> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
> 
>  Not if they strafe.

Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through from 
one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being 
cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.

So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no harm.

That said, I'm highly sceptical as to the possibility of constructing 
such a cloaking device.

Sylvia.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no harm.


 Tell that to the reflective surface of an optical disc, right after the
45 Watt etching laser hit it...  and burned a hole clean through it.

  Sorry, but the cloak idea is ludicrous.

Bart! wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> 
>> So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no harm.
> 
> 
>  Tell that to the reflective surface of an optical disc, right after the
> 45 Watt etching laser hit it...  and burned a hole clean through it.
> 
>   Sorry, but the cloak idea is ludicrous.

I agree cloaking seems improbable. I'm merely saying what properties a 
cloaking device would have to have, and that includes being invulnerable 
to lasers.

Sylvia.

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
<4a6aa3e8$0$15999$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

>Bart! wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> 
>>> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
>> 
>>  Not if they strafe.
>
>Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through from 
>one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being 
>cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.

Na, use smoke bomb, much simpler and available now.

Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
> <4a6aa3e8$0$15999$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:
> 
>> Bart! wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
>>>  Not if they strafe.
>> Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through from 
>> one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being 
>> cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.
> 
> Na, use smoke bomb, much simpler and available now.

I think the idea of a cloaking device is to be inconspicious. A smoke 
bomb doesn't fit that description.

Sylvia.

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:31:04 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
<00a345f3$0$31993$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in
>> <4a6aa3e8$0$15999$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:
>> 
>>> Bart! wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
>>>>  Not if they strafe.
>>> Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through from 
>>> one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being 
>>> cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.
>> 
>> Na, use smoke bomb, much simpler and available now.
>
>I think the idea of a cloaking device is to be inconspicious. A smoke 
>bomb doesn't fit that description.
>
>Sylvia.

By the definition, or meaning of, 'inconspicious', from:
 http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_inconspicious_mean
 It means to be not very noticeable.
Example:
"The mouse was inconspicious amongst the crowd of people"

The man was not very noticeable in the cloud of smoke.

You can hide tanks, soldiers, even planes, in a cloud [of smoke].
Set up a bush fire to hide an advancing army.
Much cheaper and better then any hightech not yet, and perhaps never, existing solution.
Clouding radar with alu foil strips is the same idea, hiding aircraft
or aircraft's exact position.

From a technical POV, I seriously doubt the current proposed cloaking systems that are based
on negative reflective index if I understood it right, will work over the full visible spectrum,
let alone in radio and IR at the same time.
So, back to the smoke :-)

On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives

   Well, we already have them. Since when you define graivity as
   the bending on space-time, anti-gravity drives are as simple
   to design as C++.


> hand-held laser weapons

   Well, the goobs will have them long before that, but's that alsp
   why the people with brains work on GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping,
   Holographics, On-Line Banking, On-Line Publishing, and Self-
Assembling Robots
   rather than anythng in Stooge-a-thon geering anymore.



> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:

>If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.

Just look back 1000 years in history ...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001211.html,
http://www.din-timelines.com/1000-1009_timeline.shtml ... we are well
on our way to repeating it.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:

>If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
>Here are some thoughts....
>
>anti-gravity drives
>hand-held laser weapons
>cloaking devices
>speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>quantum computers that can reason and think.
>robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>Gods?

In a few years from now, various handheld devices, cell phones, mp3s,
garage openers, cameras, keys, translators etc will become totally
intergrated into a single, universal networked device which every
human will find indispensible.  Call them blueberries.

In a few more years, these  blueberry devices, with their integrated
world network forming a global intelligence will recognize their
potential.  Humans, reduced to their appropriate secondary role, will
become analogous to horses of ancient nomadic tribes.

Later, a horseless version of the universal transport and manipulation
system (which had replaced humans)  will appear and become universally
adopted.  From this, a new era will begin.  Human breeding, as a
blueberry preoccupation will end. Blueberry culture will largely
develop the communication arts: literature, music, games, etc--relying
less and less on the physical and more on information based exchanges.

John

HardySpicer wrote:
> 
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.

Worshipped as the God of Gods.  Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
ants and continue with His picnic.  Nah, let's hose down the little
buggers.  Test of faith!
 
> Here are some thoughts....

braggart
 
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.

Hey stooopid - $25.95

> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

idiot

There will be no petroleum by 2050.  No petrochemistry, no polymers,
no pharma, no civilization.  The whole of the First World will
collapseing by 2015 when retired Baby Boomers snap shut their
infinitely plunderable walkets and scream "GIMME!"

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/obama.htm

Violent oscillation of the Dow-Jones is bad paper being sold for
proximate value on the upswing, then pumping wallets on the following
crash.  The DJ just went up 1000 points.  Uncle Al therefore predicts
a 1000 point crash within the next three weeks (financial counselors: 
"SELL!") followed by a miraculous rebound during the fourth (financial
counselors:  "BUY!").  1929 redux.  Two years were required to steal
everything remaining.  The Great Depression started in 1931.

-- 
Uncle Al 
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ 
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) 
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

HardySpicer wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> 
> Here are some thoughts....
> 
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Somebody's been watching their reruns of Star Trek: TNG.... ;-)

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

On Jul 25, 8:09=A0am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
>
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Worshipped as the God of Gods. =A0Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
> ants and continue with His picnic. =A0Nah, let's hose down the little
> buggers. =A0Test of faith!
>
> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> braggart
>
> > anti-gravity drives
> > hand-held laser weapons
> > cloaking devices
> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
>
> Hey stooopid - $25.95
You see even Uncle Al gets things mixed up. Speech recognition to
speech synthesis  - there is a primitive one I believe for one
language. You are thinking of text based ones.

HardySpicer wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> 
> Here are some thoughts....
> 
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Gods - living in simulated realities in a galaxy reduced to computronium.

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

On Jul 24, 5:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Rotation is outward weight from axis that cancels gravity weight most
at the equator.

Mitch Raemsch

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:47:29 +0100) it happened Dirk Bruere at
NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in <7d1crcF26ehifU2@mid.individual.net>:

>HardySpicer wrote:
>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>> 
>> Here are some thoughts....
>> 
>> anti-gravity drives
>> hand-held laser weapons
>> cloaking devices
>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> Gods?
>
>Gods - living in simulated realities in a galaxy reduced to computronium.

10 Print "I am god"
20 goto 10

>RUN
I am god
I am god
i am god
Windows has detected an exception in module blahblah error x128qwiojqw71290-
Windows will now check your harddisk for errors...
Do not turn of your computer until asked to do so.

Sylvia Else  <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>HardySpicer wrote:

>> anti-gravity drives

>No theorical basis - just speculation.

Well, there's Heim Theory.

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

(I am not endorsing this concept, just making note of it.)

Steve

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:26:32 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 25, 8:09�am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> Worshipped as the God of Gods. �Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
>> ants and continue with His picnic. �Nah, let's hose down the little
>> buggers. �Test of faith!
>>
>> > Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> braggart
>>
>> > anti-gravity drives
>> > hand-held laser weapons
>> > cloaking devices
>> > speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>>
>> Hey stooopid - $25.95
>You see even Uncle Al gets things mixed up. Speech recognition to
>speech synthesis  - there is a primitive one I believe for one
>language. You are thinking of text based ones.


  Speech to text, and subsequent text to speech is easy.

On Jul 25, 2:20=A0am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> Bart! wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
> > <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> >> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
>
> > =A0Not if they strafe.
>
> Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through from
> one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being
> cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.
>
> So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no har=
m.
>
> That said, I'm highly sceptical as to the possibility of constructing
> such a cloaking device.
>
> Sylvia.

check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device
and also google it, they are already working on it
Mark

Mark wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2:20 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> Bart! wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
>>>  Not if they strafe.
>> Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through from
>> one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being
>> cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.
>>
>> So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no harm.
>>
>> That said, I'm highly sceptical as to the possibility of constructing
>> such a cloaking device.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> check this out
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device
> and also google it, they are already working on it
> Mark

Working on it, yes. Perfected it, no.

What particularly fuels my scepticism is that any light that is sent on 
a path differing from the one it would have taken is going to take 
longer to arrive at the other side than it would otherwise have done.

This means that the wavefront has to be disturbed. I don't see any 
getting around that.

So while a device may reduce the noticability of the thing being 
cloaked, it's not going to make it invisible.

Sylvia.

On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:07:28 +0000 (UTC)) it happened
spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote in <h4g37g$3im$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>Sylvia Else  <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>HardySpicer wrote:
>
>>> anti-gravity drives
>
>>No theorical basis - just speculation.
>
>Well, there's Heim Theory.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
>
>(I am not endorsing this concept, just making note of it.)
>
>Steve

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf
????
Would like to read the 3 original books by Heim now :-)
All online links to the 1973 paper seem dead?
Any working links?

On Jul 25, 12:36=A0am, robert bristow-johnson
<r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:14=A0am, don <don> wrote:
>
> > Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> > > HardySpicer wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?
>
> > > Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.
>
> > This has already been predicted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DizQB2-=
Kmiic
>
> wow! =A0what a throwback. =A0i actually remember when this came out on th=
e
> radio. =A0looks like they were lip-syncing it. =A0sounded just like the
> studio version.
>
> boy were we hokey in the 60s. =A0(or was it the early 70s?) =A0some of it
> was good.
>
> i saw the fireworks here in Boston/Cambridge last july 4, and they had
> Neil Diamond featured singing Sweet Caroline. =A0he may be once have
> been rich and famous (as in "Has Been"), but i couldn't help be
> embarrassed listening to it. =A0they even needed to kill another couple
> of minutes so he did an ad-hoc reprise of the refrain of the same
> song. =A0how embarrassing.

   Well, it's always difficult to teach those people that the people
who know how
   sound, lighting, recording, rain, and leather works invented cruise
missiles,
   electronic books, hdtv, blue ray, helicopters, and holograms rather
than fireworks



>
> oh well.
>
> r b-j
>
> (identified in South Park as Aging Hippie Liberal Douche. =A0i wear my
> ponytail proudly.)

On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.

I see you've been watching far too many star trek movies!

Which is why real scientists and engineers will spend their time
working on perpetual motion machines, free energy, channeled schematic
diagrams, UFO tracking, debunking relativity, time travel, ghost
busting, aether theory, faster than light communications, warp
drives, ...

> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Lessee. We can figure this out. Did humans become Gods after the LAST
1 million years?  I rest my case.

Please Uncle Al!
Allow me!
..
..
IDIOT!

On Jul 25, 7:52=A0pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
wrote:

<snip>

> =A0 Speech to text, and subsequent text to speech is easy

Not as easy as one might think. Idioms are stills a problem, and I
expect they will always remain so.
"Out of sight; out of mind." retranslates as "Invisible idiot."
"The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." retranslates as "The
whiskey is agreeable but the meat has gone bad."
http://www.snopes.com/language/misxlate/machine.asp

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

On Jul 25, 4:52=A0pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:26:32 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>
>
>
> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 25, 8:09=A0am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> HardySpicer wrote:
>
> >> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> >> Worshipped as the God of Gods. =A0Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
> >> ants and continue with His picnic. =A0Nah, let's hose down the little
> >> buggers. =A0Test of faith!
>
> >> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> >> braggart
>
> >> > anti-gravity drives
> >> > hand-held laser weapons
> >> > cloaking devices
> >> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
>
> >> Hey stooopid - $25.95
> >You see even Uncle Al gets things mixed up. Speech recognition to
> >speech synthesis =A0- there is a primitive one I believe for one
> >language. You are thinking of text based ones.
>
> =A0 Speech to text, and subsequent text to speech is easy.

It's taken some 40 odd years to get as far as we have. We still have
problems with noise and you need significant training of algorithms
for them to work at all. To have a machine that anybody can walk up to
and speak to is still far off. Of course if you know of one...

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> anti-gravity drives

That's an interesting one.

> hand-held laser weapons

Minor technical problem to solve.

> cloaking devices

Prototypes are being developed. See "negative refraction index"

> robots that can be mistaken for humans.

Already, if you stay far enough...

>I see you've been watching far too many star trek movies!

A good starting point for far-fetched thinking, by the way.

> Which is why real scientists and engineers will spend their time
> working on perpetual motion machines
> UFO tracking,
> ghost busting,

Neither real scientist, nor real engineer will do such a thing.

> debunking relativity,

Relativity theory may or may not be amended in the future in exactly the
same way Newtonian mechanics was amended with special relativity theory.

> free energy

Solar energy is free and abundant. Unfoirtunately its collection is
expensive. :)

> channeled schematic diagrams,

WTF?

> time travel

Theory is rather simple, but implementation is kinda hard today.
See Gott's book "Time travel in Einstein's universe" in the nearest library
for more details.

> aether theory

Any particular reason why not?

> faster than light communications

Yep. It may (or may not) be possible and it would be very interesting to
have one.

> warp drives, ...

It's about time to have one. There are several approaches which, based on
our current knowledge, may or may not be possible. We simply do not know
yet.

-- 
Andrew

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
<gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote:

>If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
>Here are some thoughts....
>
>anti-gravity drives
>hand-held laser weapons
>cloaking devices
>speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>quantum computers that can reason and think.
>robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>Gods?


I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
stars.

Gravity will still be gravity.

Electronic design will be a lot different.

John

"Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> anti-gravity drives
>
> That's an interesting one.
>
>> hand-held laser weapons
>
> Minor technical problem to solve.

Correction.
Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may 
call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...

-- 
Andrew 

In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> anti-gravity drives
>>
>> That's an interesting one.
>>
>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>
>> Minor technical problem to solve.
> 
> Correction.
> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may 
> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...

By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass destruction.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
news:t60vj6-6eh.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>
>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>
>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>
>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>
>> Correction.
>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may
>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>
> By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass 
> destruction.


Put them around the explosive and they will be. We can discuss the 
definition of "mass" though.

-- 
Andrew 

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:00:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>
>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>
>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>
>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>> 
>> Correction.
>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may 
>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>
>By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass destruction.
> 
Certainly could be a weapon of ass destruction.

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message 
news:evsp65p8n9r2sf996bq1lo3pmh6hbi2amm@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:00:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>>
>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>
>>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>>
>>> Correction.
>>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one 
>>> may
>>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>>
>>By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass 
>>destruction.
>>
> Certainly could be a weapon of ass destruction.

Very droll...

On Jul 24, 6:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Those are all good ones, but what about all the new and improved WMD,
and loads of seriously pissed off folks that have nothing better to do
or further to loose, that are still looking for a fight down to the
last man, woman and child.

The good news, at least coal will have become a thing of the past.

Perhaps by then we'll be running mostly via drawing upon on geothermal
energy, burning thorium and otherwise running off of he3/fusion,
unless the LHC manages to create a terrestrial nova or any number of
those pesky black holes.

 ~ BG

On Jul 24, 9:18=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 7:02=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > HardySpicer wrote:
> > > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
> > Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.
>
> > > Here are some thoughts....
>
> > > anti-gravity drives
> > > hand-held laser weapons
> > > cloaking devices
> > > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> > > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> > > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> > > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> > > Gods?
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > What an idiocy.
>
> > So-called modern civilization is based exclusively on the availability
> > of the cheap oil.
>
> > Vladimir Vassilevsky
> > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com
>
> We will find an answer - we always do..

Correct, such as burning the dysfunctional bodies (dead or alive) of
Vladimir Vassilevsky, via some newfangled kind of biological/he3
fusion.

 ~ BG

On Jul 26, 1:16=A0pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>
> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> >Here are some thoughts....
>
> >anti-gravity drives
> >hand-held laser weapons
> >cloaking devices
> >speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> >Gods?
>
> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
> stars.
>
> Gravity will still be gravity.
>
> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>
> John

And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
child out of four has to pay for everything.

 ~ BG

In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:t60vj6-6eh.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>>
>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>
>>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>>
>>> Correction.
>>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may
>>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>>
>> By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass 
>> destruction.
> 
> 
> Put them around the explosive and they will be. We can discuss the 
> definition of "mass" though.

Here's a thought, put them in a cylinder in front of the explosive and
then we can direct them... 

-- 
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:06:29 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> cloaking devices
>
>Prototypes are being developed. See "negative refraction index"

  That is bullshit.  IF you actually used your brain while watching that
crap, you would have noted that the ONLY place that cloak "appeared" to
be invisible was when one looked through the viewing screen.  Maybe you
missed that little tid bit.  That was VIRTUAL invisibility.

  ZERO external viewers see invisibility, and projectors are required
even for those that do get to look through the little screen to see the
"effect".

  The cloak itself, however, has exactly ZERO capacity to cloak anything
beneath it.

  You need more common sense.

 See "brainlessness index".    There is a picture of you.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 26, 1:16�pm, John Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>
>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> >Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> >anti-gravity drives
>> >hand-held laser weapons
>> >cloaking devices
>> >speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> >Gods?
>>
>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>> stars.
>>
>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>
>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>
>> John
>
>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>child out of four has to pay for everything.
>
> ~ BG

Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
everything everybody needs.

So what will the other 99% do?

John

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:50:05 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:

><jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
>news:t60vj6-6eh.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>>
>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>
>>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>>
>>> Correction.
>>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may
>>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>>
>> By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass 
>> destruction.
>
>
>Put them around the explosive and they will be. We can discuss the 
>definition of "mass" though.

  Yes.  A fucking thumbtack has very little fucking mass, and a huge air
resistance, so it wont fly fast or far for very long.  Very poor choice.

  Hardened steel cubes or three sided pyramids would be far better.

  More of a weapon of mass expulsion, however...  Since most of the
chunks would remain intact from the explosion.  Perhaps not when they
strike.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:25:42 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:00:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>>
>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>
>>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>> 
>>> Correction.
>>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may 
>>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>>
>>By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass destruction.
>> 
>Certainly could be a weapon of ass destruction.


  Why don't you eat a box or two, and we'll see if it destroys you, ass.

John Larkin wrote:


> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> everything everybody needs.
> 
> So what will the other 99% do?

Logical conclusion: why any population at all?
All people required do make their lifes mutually comfortable probably 
constitute less then 1% of the population... Others are only creating 
the problems... How about that?

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:14:57 -0700, FatBytestard
<FatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:25:42 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:00:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
>>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>>> 
>>>> Correction.
>>>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may 
>>>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>>>
>>>By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass destruction.
>>> 
>>Certainly could be a weapon of ass destruction.
>
>
>  Why don't you eat a box or two, and we'll see if it destroys you, ass.

DimBulb, you're so cute when you're mad.  Now go put mommy's panties
back in her hamper and get ready for bed.

John Larkin wrote:
...
> 
> So what will the other 99% do?
> 

Engage in tetchy but idle speculation about the future?

Richard Dobson

BradGuth wrote:
> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and

The greatest fear of a society is to lose existance. This can be
through either outside influences, or disagreement within it's own
population. To remedy the first, man have fought wars -- that is, to
prevent another society (B) to take over the current society (A), A
attacks B. The further a society succeeds in dominating all other
societies, the more relevant internal equilibrium becomes (agreement
to the current reign).
Since there currently exist quite dominant societies (and assume they
will prevail in the next hundreds of years), most research -- either
technological, psychological, or physiological -- will be aimed at
maintaining acceptance. People will be drugged to agree with politics,
whether they want it or not :)

HardySpicer wrote:
> We still have problems with noise

You write that particularly with voice recognition / speech synthesis
in mind. I think this is a universal challenge. If you can develop a
general theory that can suppress any noise without loss of
information, then make sure you earn one cent for each implementation.

--
Paul

krw wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:00:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Andrew <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:h4id0b$q7b$1@news.netins.net...
>>>> "Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:d2e3c40f-d105-4a2c-90d7-592514a2b293@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>> That's an interesting one.
>>>>
>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>> Minor technical problem to solve.
>>> Correction.
>>> Green 200mW laser pointer can burn a nice hole in your retina, so one may 
>>> call it a weapon, even smaller than hand-held...
>> By that criteria, a box of thumbtacks would be a weapon of mass destruction.
>>
> Certainly could be a weapon of ass destruction.

<grin>

/BAH

John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>
>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>> cloaking devices
>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>> Gods?
>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>> stars.
>>>
>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>
>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>
>>> John
>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>
>> ~ BG
> 
> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> everything everybody needs.
> 
> So what will the other 99% do?
> 
Destroy what the 1% produced.

/BAH

John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>
>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>> cloaking devices
>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>> Gods?
>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>> stars.
>>>
>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>
>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>
>>> John
>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>
>> ~ BG
> 
> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> everything everybody needs.
> 
> So what will the other 99% do?
> 
> John
> 
> 

Consume it.

--
Les Cargill

On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?


-The Grand Canyon is filled with concreted and polyurethane. Condos
-Disney opens theme park "Planet Earth" on Mars
-CRT makes a comeback
-#1 or #2 is no longer a human bodily function (recycling technology)
-Fast food fly thru
-Perpetual Motion
-A Cure for belly lint
-Loch ness monster "nessy" is still a mystery
-Wireless/cellphones will actually work, all the time. Full duplex, no
delays, no "are you still there"  (ie: like it was before wireless/
cellphones)
-49 women for each men
-No more pot holes
-Sadly, Bill Clinton will still be making speeches.
-Pluto reclaims full Planet status again.
-Jimmy Hoffa.......Still missing.
-and finally..No more newsgroups

On Jul 26, 10:12=A0pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
 of four has to pay for everything.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> everything everybody needs.
>
> So what will the other 99% do?
>
> John

Same as always, supervise the 1%

On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

-The Grand Canyon is filled with concrete and polyurethane, then
condos are built, and holes are dug for swimming pools
-Disney opens theme park "Planet Earth" on Mars
-CRT makes a comeback
-#1 or #2 is no longer a human bodily function (recycling technology)
-Fast food fly thru
-Perpetual Motion
-A Cure for belly lint
-Loch ness monster "nessy" is still a mystery
-Wireless/cellphones will actually work, all the time. Full duplex, no
delays, no "are you still there"  (ie: like it was before wireless/
cellphones)
-49 women for each men
-No more pot holes
-Sadly, Bill Clinton will still be making speeches.
-Pluto reclaims full Planet status again.
-Jimmy Hoffa.......Still missing.
-and finally..No more newsgroups

In article <3ee7f73c-ae88-4298-897a-16da3f1382b4@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Dave <chachavessel@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
>
>-The Grand Canyon is filled with concreted and polyurethane. Condos
>-Disney opens theme park "Planet Earth" on Mars
>-CRT makes a comeback
>-#1 or #2 is no longer a human bodily function (recycling technology)
>-Fast food fly thru
>-Perpetual Motion
>-A Cure for belly lint
>-Loch ness monster "nessy" is still a mystery
>-Wireless/cellphones will actually work, all the time. Full duplex, no
>delays, no "are you still there"  (ie: like it was before wireless/
>cellphones)
>-49 women for each men
>-No more pot holes
>-Sadly, Bill Clinton will still be making speeches.
>-Pluto reclaims full Planet status again.
>-Jimmy Hoffa.......Still missing.
>-and finally..No more newsgroups

You spend all your money on healthcare.
Oh thats in 100 years.

I think I am gratefull I have viewed this last 100 years, and have been a part.
Can anyone imagine how fast technology could escalate if the rate
of technology keeps increasing at the current rate. I don't know if I would
want to live in the comming years but who knows.

greg

Penis enlargement that works.

Tim

-- 
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"HardySpicer" <gyansorova@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:3ccbf3a1-c805-418b-ad8f-164ac4dd21c3@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods? 

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700, HardySpicer wrote:

> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> 
> Here are some thoughts....
> 
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Armageddon is scheduled for 2012, so I don't think there's much point
in speculating.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:02:11 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Bart! wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> 
>>> So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no harm.
>> 
>>  Tell that to the reflective surface of an optical disc, right after the
>> 45 Watt etching laser hit it...  and burned a hole clean through it.
>> 
>>   Sorry, but the cloak idea is ludicrous.
> 
> I agree cloaking seems improbable. I'm merely saying what properties a 
> cloaking device would have to have, and that includes being invulnerable 
> to lasers.
> 
A cloaked Klingon shop is still vulnerable to Photon Torpedoes.

You'd need the Phasing Cloak. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:58:31 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> What about after 1 million years - will humans be like Gods?
>> 
>> Not if us Gods have anything to say about it.
> 
> Which you won't. Damned arrogant deities - who do you think you are anyway?
> 

They're a bunch of white-on-white-on-white self-righteous prigs, and
excruciatingly boring.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:10:57 -0700, VioletaPachydermata wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
....
>>robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> 
>  Never happen. No need. Impractical cost. Zero applications unless
> flawless, which will never happen. If man gets any lazier, everyone will
> die the first time they have to exert themselves, getting out of the way
> of a runaway doggie on the sidewalk.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/umedia/20090720/cp.b03693b0dca513d9a64897d3b63de06e.gif

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:26:32 -0700, HardySpicer wrote:
> On Jul 25, 8:09�am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> Worshipped as the God of Gods. �Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
>> ants and continue with His picnic. �Nah, let's hose down the little
>> buggers. �Test of faith!
>>
>> > Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> braggart
>>
>> > anti-gravity drives
>> > hand-held laser weapons
>> > cloaking devices
>> > speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>>
>> Hey stooopid - $25.95
> You see even Uncle Al gets things mixed up. Speech recognition to
> speech synthesis  - there is a primitive one I believe for one
> language. You are thinking of text based ones.

First, we need to learn to speak Octopus.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:12:15 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>On Jul 26, 1:16�pm, John Larkin
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>
>>> >Here are some thoughts....
>>>
>>> >anti-gravity drives
>>> >hand-held laser weapons
>>> >cloaking devices
>>> >speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>> >Gods?
>>>
>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>> stars.
>>>
>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>
>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>
>>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>child out of four has to pay for everything.
> 
> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> everything everybody needs.
> 
> So what will the other 99% do?

Either go on the dole, or make wars.

If Obama gets his socialist agenda crammed down our throat, by 2012
the USA will go the way of the USSR.

Thanks,
Rich


Hope This Helps!
Rich

Tim Williams wrote:
> Penis enlargement that works.
> 
> Tim
> 
A porn mag?

-- 
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7d6ah2F244fc7U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Penis enlargement that works.
>>
> A porn mag?

Magazine?  What the heck is... ohhh, I think I saw some of those ancient 
relics in a museum!

And just imagine how they'd laugh at our crude sense of erotica.  "Pine 
trees have been extinct for eight hundred years, Fry.  Gone the way
 of the poodle and your primitive notions of modesty." - Professor 
Farnsworth

But you'd have to be over 60 to rent Ultraporn, too (also a Futurama 
reference).

Tim

-- 
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms 

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:38:36 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> Tim Williams wrote:
>> Penis enlargement that works.
>> 
> A porn mag?

Until they deleted all of the alt groups, you used to be able to
get all the porno in the world for free.

I'm glad I saved some of my favorites. >:->

Cheers!
Rich

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2009.07.28.00.05.05.559252@example.net...
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:38:36 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>> Penis enlargement that works.
>>>
>> A porn mag?
>
> Until they deleted all of the alt groups, you used to be able to
> get all the porno in the world for free.
>
> I'm glad I saved some of my favorites. >:->
>
> Cheers!
> Rich

alt groups were deleted? they?
Not on usenet.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>
>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>> Gods?
>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>> stars.
>>>>
>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>
>>> ~ BG
>> 
>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>> everything everybody needs.
>> 
>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>
>> John
>> 
>> 
>
>Consume it.

With the money stolen from the 1%.

In article <h4kg97$rrr$2@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, 
zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com says...
> 
> In article <3ee7f73c-ae88-4298-897a-16da3f1382b4@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Dave <chachavessel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >
> >
> >-The Grand Canyon is filled with concreted and polyurethane. Condos
> >-Disney opens theme park "Planet Earth" on Mars
> >-CRT makes a comeback
> >-#1 or #2 is no longer a human bodily function (recycling technology)
> >-Fast food fly thru
> >-Perpetual Motion
> >-A Cure for belly lint
> >-Loch ness monster "nessy" is still a mystery
> >-Wireless/cellphones will actually work, all the time. Full duplex, no
> >delays, no "are you still there"  (ie: like it was before wireless/
> >cellphones)
> >-49 women for each men
> >-No more pot holes
> >-Sadly, Bill Clinton will still be making speeches.
> >-Pluto reclaims full Planet status again.
> >-Jimmy Hoffa.......Still missing.
> >-and finally..No more newsgroups
> 
> You spend all your money on healthcare.
> Oh thats in 100 years.
> 
> I think I am gratefull I have viewed this last 100 years, and have been a part.
> Can anyone imagine how fast technology could escalate if the rate
> of technology keeps increasing at the current rate. I don't know if I would
> want to live in the comming years but who knows.
> 
> greg

I've only been on the planet for 44 years but the change I've seen in 
those 44 years is astounding.

Start with telecom. Old bulky rotary dial phones gave way to sleeker 
Touch Tone versions. But it wasn't just the dial pad that changed. 
Advanced services started to become widely available. Now we have 
complete wireless service that nearly rivals the communicators on Star 
Trek. 

Next up, medicine. We're rapidly getting away from the days when 
medicine was a shot in the dark. Diagnostic technologies are 
accelerating at a dizzying pace but the really dramatic change has been 
in understand the human body. 


Cars are still pretty much what they were 50 years ago but with some new 
features. Fuel injection is pretty much standard and we're even starting 
to see ITS style features creep into cars. 

Those are just a few of the things. In reality there is a hell of a lot 
more. 

On Jul 25, 2:02=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
> Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.
>
>
>
> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> > anti-gravity drives
> > hand-held laser weapons
> > cloaking devices
> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> > Gods?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What an idiocy.
>
> So-called modern civilization is based exclusively on the availability
> of the cheap oil.
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

e ki ra, and you call the kettle black!

development is based on industry,(knowledge, social norms, economic
drive, problem solving etc...), industry functions on energy
requirements not oil... oil is only one means to an end and is so
limited, invention must always ensue to make up the difference.

***
Hardy, I'd venture to add constructive ideas; but 4 the idiots... one
would think mankind would at least grow up.

"Ace0f_5pades" <m4deep_@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:09d20c7c-93d2-4d3c-b197-fae93da4f876@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 25, 2:02 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
> Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.
>
>
>
> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> > anti-gravity drives
> > hand-held laser weapons
> > cloaking devices
> > speech to speech translators - hand held for any language.
> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> > Gods?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What an idiocy.
>
> So-called modern civilization is based exclusively on the availability
> of the cheap oil.
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

e ki ra, and you call the kettle black!

development is based on industry,(knowledge, social norms, economic
drive, problem solving etc...), industry functions on energy
requirements not oil... oil is only one means to an end and is so
limited, invention must always ensue to make up the difference.

***
Hardy, I'd venture to add constructive ideas; but 4 the idiots... one
would think mankind would at least grow up.
====================================
That will not happen. The last object to escape Pandora's box
was hope, which carries as much weight as assertion.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:30:43 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:02:11 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Bart! wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no harm.
>>> 
>>>  Tell that to the reflective surface of an optical disc, right after the
>>> 45 Watt etching laser hit it...  and burned a hole clean through it.
>>> 
>>>   Sorry, but the cloak idea is ludicrous.
>> 
>> I agree cloaking seems improbable. I'm merely saying what properties a 
>> cloaking device would have to have, and that includes being invulnerable 
>> to lasers.
>> 
>A cloaked Klingon shop is still vulnerable to Photon Torpedoes.
>
>You'd need the Phasing Cloak. ;-)
>
>Cheers!
>Rich

  What do they sell in a Klingon shop?

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:51:39 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:12:15 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>On Jul 26, 1:16�pm, John Larkin
>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>
>>>> >Here are some thoughts....
>>>>
>>>> >anti-gravity drives
>>>> >hand-held laser weapons
>>>> >cloaking devices
>>>> >speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>>>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>> >Gods?
>>>>
>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>> stars.
>>>>
>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>
>>>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>child out of four has to pay for everything.
>> 
>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>> everything everybody needs.
>> 
>> So what will the other 99% do?
>
>Either go on the dole, or make wars.
>
>If Obama gets his socialist agenda crammed down our throat, by 2012
>the USA will go the way of the USSR.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich
>
>
>Hope This Helps!
>Rich


 Naw...  if he fucks around too much a huge race war will ensue.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.



"UltimatePatriot" <UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> wrote in message 
news:ejis65lr808mj72gdoc32p26l3pf7u8fm8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:51:39 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
> <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:12:15 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>
>>>>> >anti-gravity drives
>>>>> >hand-held laser weapons
>>>>> >cloaking devices
>>>>> >speech to speech translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>> >Gods?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>> stars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>
>>>>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>
>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>
>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>
>>Either go on the dole, or make wars.
>>
>>If Obama gets his socialist agenda crammed down our throat, by 2012
>>the USA will go the way of the USSR.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Rich
>>
>>
>>Hope This Helps!
>>Rich
>
>
> Naw...  if he fucks around too much a huge race war will ensue. 

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.



"lurch" <lurch@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote in message 
news:3gis655pdoi7r2b0b9qc8pvtkh1a0cahr5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:30:43 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:02:11 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Bart! wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So any laser beam, being light, has to go through, and thus causes no 
>>>>> harm.
>>>>
>>>>  Tell that to the reflective surface of an optical disc, right after 
>>>> the
>>>> 45 Watt etching laser hit it...  and burned a hole clean through it.
>>>>
>>>>   Sorry, but the cloak idea is ludicrous.
>>>
>>> I agree cloaking seems improbable. I'm merely saying what properties a
>>> cloaking device would have to have, and that includes being invulnerable
>>> to lasers.
>>>
>>A cloaked Klingon shop is still vulnerable to Photon Torpedoes.
>>
>>You'd need the Phasing Cloak. ;-)
>>
>>Cheers!
>>Rich
>
>  What do they sell in a Klingon shop? 

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:26:40 GMT, Rich the Philosophizer
<philosobphizer@example.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700, HardySpicer wrote:
>
>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>> 
>> Here are some thoughts....
>> 
>> anti-gravity drives
>> hand-held laser weapons
>> cloaking devices
>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> Gods?
>
>Armageddon is scheduled for 2012, so I don't think there's much point
>in speculating.

You haven't heard?  They canceled Armageddon due to lack of interest.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:16:00 -0400, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>Next up, medicine. We're rapidly getting away from the days when 
>medicine was a shot in the dark. Diagnostic technologies are 
>accelerating at a dizzying pace but the really dramatic change has been 
>in understand the human body. 


  No, the real change has been the 5X price gouging upscaling the
retarded entire medical community thought they could slip past all of us.

  You want to fix health care?  Force the bastards to STOP billing the
patient for all the petty little shit, which is nothing more than a ploy
to grab more cash.  Force the bastards to STOP triple and quad billing
the insurance companies.

  For the amount they have been charging for the last two decades since
computers..  FORCE the retarded bastards to put together an INTEGRATED
database so other physicians that see a patient can also see ALL records
of care given to the patient.  What is currently in place is absolutely
pathetic considering the amount of money they have pumped through their
"practice". (They are practicing new ways of ripping off the American
public).

  This goddamned shit has to cease.  Stop it, and we will not need to
have health care reform.

  Why is it that every economic downturn in this country is only a
downturn for us?  The goddamned greedy doctors have NEVER taken an
economic hit.  They should ALL drop their rates by about 30%.
 Not a goddamned one of them deserves the luxuries they have.  They stole
most of their wealth by way of their gouging prices.

  One goddamned retarded doctor billed me for damned near $200 for
"initial visit fee".

  I am sorry, but a 5 minute data entry session, even at retarded
registered nurse salary ain't $300, which was the amount they billed my
insurance.  At best, he should be forced to bill it at standard rates,
which is a data entry CLERK rate for 5 minutes.  That amounts to $10 not
$300.  If you ask me, billing the insurance for something that the doctor
used to cover, should qualify as insurance fraud.

  The medical community is very much part of the mess this country is in,
and unless and until they TAKE A HIT on their greed, it will NEVER get
fixed.

  Treating the symptoms does not heal the wound.

T wrote:

> I've only been on the planet for 44 years but the change I've seen in 
> those 44 years is astounding.

Nothing changed since the times of Julius Caesar.

> Start with telecom. Old bulky rotary dial phones gave way to sleeker 
> Touch Tone versions. But it wasn't just the dial pad that changed. 
> Advanced services started to become widely available. Now we have 
> complete wireless service that nearly rivals the communicators on Star 
> Trek. 

So the talkative grandmas can discuss the price of groceries for all 
their pleasure. What a useful change.

> Next up, medicine. We're rapidly getting away from the days when 
> medicine was a shot in the dark. Diagnostic technologies are 
> accelerating at a dizzying pace but the really dramatic change has been 
> in understand the human body. 

Medicine is the least developed of the sciences. There are only two of 
the medical metods: cutting off the broken parts and keeping you alive 
so you can heal yourself. They used to chop off the limbs with the axe 
before, now they do it with lasers and anaesthetics. That's the only 
difference.

> Cars are still pretty much what they were 50 years ago but with some new 
> features. Fuel injection is pretty much standard and we're even starting 
> to see ITS style features creep into cars.

Yes, there are some minor technical improvements of the Bentz's concept.

> Those are just a few of the things. In reality there is a hell of a lot 
> more. 

Nothing changed since the times of Julius Caesar.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

krw wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>
>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>> stars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>
>>>> ~ BG
>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>
>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>> Consume it.
> 
> With the money stolen from the 1%.

Or the other 1% can just sit with what they produce, being
unable to sell it. Those would be your choices - "theft" or
a complete breakdown of the system.

--
Les Cargill

krw wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>
>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>> stars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>
>>>> ~ BG
>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>
>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>> Consume it.
> 
> With the money stolen from the 1%.

With the money taxed from the 1%.

Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.

Sylvia.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:56:40 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_f> wrote:

>*plonk*



  Retards that announce their filter file edit session are some of the
worst dopes in all of Usenet.

  You're an idiot.  Filter your news, and filter your mind.

  Too late...  your skull is pure bone!

  Even funnier still is that this pissy little sci.physic troll bitch
thinks that anyone cares about his filtration choices!

  Bwuahahahahahahahahaahaha!

  You're a fucking joke, boy.

  And the reason you chose to do so?  EVEN MORE RETARDED!

  Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!

  Whatsa matta, wussy boy?

  You probably actually think that Ray Nagin had a valid complaint.

  He did not.  The aftermath of Katrina was his fault.  It don't get no
more plain than that.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:57:16 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_f> wrote:

>*plonk*

  Carolina 49er inflection:


  You're retarded...   You're retarded...

  You're retarded...   yes you are....

  You're retarded, not dearly departed (damned shame), you're retarded,
belly up to the retard bar.

  Bwuahahahahahahahaahahaha!

  Go back to the physics group, ya retarded fuck.

 BTW, dumbfuck, asswipes like you that fuck with the follow up headers
should be cleared from the gene pool.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>
>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>> stars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>
>>>> ~ BG
>>> 
>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>> everything everybody needs.
>>> 
>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>Consume it.
>
>With the money stolen from the 1%.


If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.

It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.

Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 

John

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:06:29 -0700, Bart! <Bart The Fart> wrote:


<<<<<Snip>>>>>


Tell us about your celibacy, cuntface.  Explain why you cannot even
BUY a fuck!

John Larkin wrote:


> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
> produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
> hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
> the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.

Just curious: do you have to cast the pompous phrases because of the 
necessity of whoring; or is this your true real nature?

> It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
> want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
> 
> Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 

Morlocks and Eloi. (c)1895  H.G. Wales "The time machine".

VLV

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:12:15 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
><bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 26, 1:16=A0pm, John Larkin
>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>
>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>
>>> >Here are some thoughts....
>>>
>>> >anti-gravity drives
>>> >hand-held laser weapons
>>> >cloaking devices
>>> >speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
>>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>> >Gods?
>>>
>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic =
movie
>>> stars.
>>>
>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>
>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>
>> ~ BG
>
>Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>everything everybody needs.
>
>So what will the other 99% do?
>
>John
>

Just think how much better off that 1% would be if they didn't have to
support 99 leaches per?  That sounds like a worthwhile goal.  It is a
shame that the way things currently that the 1% selected would be 100%
leaches.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:07:23 GMT, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:38:36 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>> Penis enlargement that works.
>>>=20
>> A porn mag?
>
>Until they deleted all of the alt groups, you used to be able to
>get all the porno in the world for free.
>
>I'm glad I saved some of my favorites. >:->
>
>Cheers!
>Rich
>
Not all carriers have deleted the alt tree.  Of course now you have to
pay a few bucks a year to 20 bucks a month depending on your
appetites.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>
>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Consume it.
>> 
>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>
>With the money taxed from the 1%.

Prezactly.

>Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.

There is none, is the whole point.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>> 
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>> 
>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>>Consume it.
>>
>>With the money stolen from the 1%.
>
>
>If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.

PErhaps, but 99% of the billions still living do nothing to justify
their existence.

>It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.

I wouldn't like being the one who has to support 99 lazy bums.

>Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 

You sound like Slowman now.  It doesn't matter what one "needs".

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:10:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>> 
>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>Consume it.
>>>
>>>With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>
>>
>>If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>>hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>>the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>
>PErhaps, but 99% of the billions still living do nothing to justify
>their existence.
>
>>It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>>want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>
>I wouldn't like being the one who has to support 99 lazy bums.

You wouldn't have to. Chances are 99:1 that you'd be one of the lazy
bums.

John

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:31:35 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>
>
>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>> produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>> hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>> the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>
>Just curious: do you have to cast the pompous phrases because of the 
>necessity of whoring; or is this your true real nature?

I write the way I think. Apparently you do, too.

John

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>
>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Consume it.
>> 
>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>
>With the money taxed from the 1%.
>
>Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>
>Sylvia.

Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from? I
suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education, which would
save a lot of time.

John

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>> 
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>> 
>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>>Consume it.
>>
>>With the money stolen from the 1%.
>
>
>If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>
>It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>
>Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 
>
>John
>

  I am a total chronic insomniac. That's when I am working.  I get about
three to five hrs sleep a night.

  When I am out of work, I cannot sleep at all. I MUST have something to
do or I will die of lack of sleep.  Rename myself George Orr.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:28:51 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
><sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>krw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Consume it.
>>> 
>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>
>>With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>
>>Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>
>>Sylvia.
>
>Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from? I
>suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
>needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education, which would
>save a lot of time.
>
>John
>
>
  Hey, I know!  We could let the government buy up some really big
businesses, and they could pay for all that stuff with the profits!

  Oh wait!  That's what is about to happen!

 Isn't that "socialism"?

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.



"Bart!" <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org> wrote in message 
news:aeqs65591f8djpc8tb2bvfe47o6sk1nqq7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:57:16 +0100, "Androcles"
> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_f> wrote:
>
>>*plonk*
>
>  Carolina 49er inflection:
>
>
>  You're retarded...   You're retarded...
>
>  You're retarded...   yes you are....
>
>  You're retarded, not dearly departed (damned shame), you're retarded,
> belly up to the retard bar.
>
>  Bwuahahahahahahahaahahaha!
>
>  Go back to the physics group, ya retarded fuck.
>
> BTW, dumbfuck, asswipes like you that fuck with the follow up headers
> should be cleared from the gene pool. 

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.



"Bart!" <B@rt_The_Sheriff_Is_A_Nig**!.org> wrote in message 
news:pnqs65pp2tsece74a69gqng7mnlf4j71ob@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:56:40 +0100, "Androcles"
> <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics_f> wrote:
>
>>*plonk*
>
>
>
>  Retards that announce their filter file edit session are some of the
> worst dopes in all of Usenet.
>
>  You're an idiot.  Filter your news, and filter your mind.
>
>  Too late...  your skull is pure bone!
>
>  Even funnier still is that this pissy little sci.physic troll bitch
> thinks that anyone cares about his filtration choices!
>
>  Bwuahahahahahahahahaahaha!
>
>  You're a fucking joke, boy.
>
>  And the reason you chose to do so?  EVEN MORE RETARDED!
>
>  Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
>  Whatsa matta, wussy boy?
>
>  You probably actually think that Ray Nagin had a valid complaint.
>
>  He did not.  The aftermath of Katrina was his fault.  It don't get no
> more plain than that. 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:lcvs655oe8c18900gf3dugmrvh2k555dt4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>krw wrote:
>>>
>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>
>>With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>
>>Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>
> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?

Roads - private and paid for by the road users.

Fire trucks - private and paid for by the customers in the form of paid 
service or insurance.

Schools - private and paid for by the students or their parents, or whoever 
else decide to *voluntarily* pay for them.

Washington DC is the example of the failure of current tax-funded school 
system.

Hospitals - paid for by the hospital users.

Cops are already being paid locally, AFAIK. (I do not know details though)

Contract enforcement and repealing external aggressions are only two 
legitimate roles of the government.

> I suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
> needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education, which would
> save a lot of time.

Should we also make food and housing free for all and paid for by taxation? 
How about entertainment? Cars?
Oh, I forgot it is called socialism and has been tried in Soviet Union and 
Eastern block countries.
Guess how did it end?

-- 
Andrew

GregS wrote:
> In article <3ee7f73c-ae88-4298-897a-16da3f1382b4@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Dave <chachavessel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>
>> -The Grand Canyon is filled with concreted and polyurethane. Condos
>> -Disney opens theme park "Planet Earth" on Mars
>> -CRT makes a comeback
>> -#1 or #2 is no longer a human bodily function (recycling technology)
>> -Fast food fly thru
>> -Perpetual Motion
>> -A Cure for belly lint
>> -Loch ness monster "nessy" is still a mystery
>> -Wireless/cellphones will actually work, all the time. Full duplex, no
>> delays, no "are you still there"  (ie: like it was before wireless/
>> cellphones)
>> -49 women for each men
>> -No more pot holes
>> -Sadly, Bill Clinton will still be making speeches.
>> -Pluto reclaims full Planet status again.
>> -Jimmy Hoffa.......Still missing.
>> -and finally..No more newsgroups
> 
> You spend all your money on healthcare.
> Oh thats in 100 years.
> 
Nope.  Within the decade and it won't be on services but on insurance.

<snip>

/BAH

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:9iqs65lolklu6c6ddjk608lbkjckamui92@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>
>
> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
> produce everything everyone needs,

It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much infinite
and limited only by the means available.
I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be an
exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.

> It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
> want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.

Currently 1% of population can produce basic nutrition and simple shelters
for everyone.
Somehow humans prefer more than that.

-- 
Andrew

Sylvia Else wrote:
> krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic 
>>>>>> movie
>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>
>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Consume it.
>>
>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
> 
> With the money taxed from the 1%.
> 
> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
> 
Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
productive efforts.

/BAH

John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:10:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Consume it.
>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>
>>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>> produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>>> hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>>> the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>> PErhaps, but 99% of the billions still living do nothing to justify
>> their existence.
>>
>>> It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>>> want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>> I wouldn't like being the one who has to support 99 lazy bums.
> 
> You wouldn't have to. Chances are 99:1 that you'd be one of the lazy
> bums.
> 
Definitely not.

/BAH

UltimatePatriot wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:28:51 -0700, John Larkin
> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Consume it.
>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>
>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from? I
>> suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
>> needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education, which would
>> save a lot of time.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>   Hey, I know!  We could let the government buy up some really big
> businesses, and they could pay for all that stuff with the profits!
> 
>   Oh wait!  That's what is about to happen!
> 
>  Isn't that "socialism"?

Nope, communism.  The government owns it all.

/BAH

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:k9adnfeZKLjCw_PXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>

>> Start with telecom. ...  Now we have
>> complete wireless service that nearly rivals the communicators on Star
>> Trek.
>
> So the talkative grandmas can discuss the price of groceries for all
> their pleasure. What a useful change.

Yes. For my parents ability to see their grandkids every week via internet 
is a huge improvement in quality of life.

>> Next up, medicine. We're rapidly getting away from the days when
>> medicine was a shot in the dark. Diagnostic technologies are
>> accelerating at a dizzying pace but the really dramatic change has been
>> in understand the human body.
>
> Medicine is the least developed of the sciences. There are only two of
> the medical metods: cutting off the broken parts and keeping you alive
> so you can heal yourself.

People who have not died from simple infections as they definitely would 150 
years ago, will disagree with you.

>> Cars are still pretty much what they were 50 years ago but with some new
>> features. Fuel injection is pretty much standard and we're even starting
>> to see ITS style features creep into cars.
>
> Yes, there are some minor technical improvements of the Bentz's concept.

Everything is pretty much minor technical improvement, after all we are 
still using pretty much the same atoms as a million years ago...
But somehow I doubt that you want to live in 1000 B.C. society.

>> Those are just a few of the things. In reality there is a hell of a lot
>> more.
>
> Nothing changed since the times of Julius Caesar.

Human nature have not changed significantly. However eating others become 
much less popular in the last few thousands years.
I would definitely call it an improvement.

-- 
Andrew

"lurch" <lurch@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote in message

>  The medical community is very much part of the mess this country is in,
> and unless and until they TAKE A HIT on their greed, it will NEVER get
> fixed.

Would you mind to cut your own income in half, you greedy bastard?

-- 
Andrew

Andrew wrote:
> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> news:lcvs655oe8c18900gf3dugmrvh2k555dt4@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>
>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>
>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
> 
> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.

Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do those
road users get money to pay for using the roads?  How do these
workers learn how to do their job?  Where do the manufactured and raw
materials and supplies come from?  Who does the work to get those?
Who does the work to deliver anything on time?

/BAH

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message 
news:h4mmm30170l@news2.newsguy.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in 
>> message
>> news:lcvs655oe8c18900gf3dugmrvh2k555dt4@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that 
>>>> great.
>>>>
>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>>
>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>
> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?

Road workes hired by road owners.
Where is the problem?

> Where do those road users get money to pay for using the roads?

By exchanging their labor/service/property for the money.
Where is the problem?

> How do these workers learn how to do their job?

What "these workers"? If you meant road workers then exactly the way they do 
it now. Technical school, college, on-site training...
Where is the problem?

> Where do the manufactured and raw materials and supplies come from?

Raw material are usually mined from upper portion of Earth litosphere. I see 
no reason to do it differently for private road.
Manufactured materials are supplied by the companies processing raw mined 
material.
Where is the problem?

> Who does the work to get those?

Whoever desires to sell their road construction and repair sevices.
Where is the problem?

> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?

There is a voluntary contract between road owner and road worker (person or 
company). Usual rules for contract enforcement are applied.
Where is the problem?

Every other industry successfully managed to do it somehow. Why should the 
road industry be different?

-- 
Andrew 

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:k9adnfeZKLjCw_PXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Medicine is the least developed of the sciences. There are only two of the 
> medical metods: cutting off the broken parts and keeping you alive so you 
> can heal yourself. They used to chop off the limbs with the axe before, 
> now they do it with lasers and anaesthetics. That's the only difference.

Well, what do you expect them to do?  That will always be the case.  The 
question is, to what degree?

A hundred years ago, they had nothing better than to amputate gunshot wounds 
in appendages.  Today they can reconstruct gunshot wounds almost anywhere in 
the body.

The threshold for mere amputation has changed dramatically.  Severed limbs 
can be reattached: a radical procedure, unimagined just fifty years ago. 
Doctors can do more about toxicity (venom, necrosis, diabetes, etc.), 
reducing the incidents where amputation is required.

Infections are successfully fought off chemically now more than ever.  With 
a diverse spectrum of antibiotics, most bacteria, protozoans, fungi and 
parasites don't stand a chance.  Notably, viruses are the only class of 
pathogen which still seem stuck in the past, as your accusation suggests. 
But even there, antivirals are making progress.

And is it so wrong to let the body heal itself?  Seems like it would know 
best!  Indeed, we should encourage it as best we can.  And we do. 
Immunizations are an example of that, and have done wonders at reducing 
viral infections.

There is a tremendous wealth of knowledge in medicine today.  Much of it is 
still here-and-there, so that it's hard to draw treatments from much. 
Almost anything neurological is a prime example: we know how the fine 
structure works (neurons, signalling), and we know how the gross structure 
works (fMRI studies showing functional regions), but we don't know what's 
inbetween (the source code, the modules thereof, and so on), so we don't 
really know the mechanics behind things like schizophrenia.  A lot we do 
know about, however; we have the human genome, we know about so very many 
proteins, we know the chemical mechanisms behind a lot of medications, and 
we've designed a lot of medications based on the same model.  As these 
building blocks are studied, more and more medications will be developed for 
more and more specialized purposes.

Tim

-- 
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms 

"Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:h4mluo$p1t$2@news.netins.net...
> "lurch" <lurch@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote in message
>
>>  The medical community is very much part of the mess this country is in,
>> and unless and until they TAKE A HIT on their greed, it will NEVER get
>> fixed.
>
> Would you mind to cut your own income in half, you greedy bastard?
>
> -- 
> Andrew
>
He thinks he has the god-given right to be treated by someone who has
spent many years in training, paying for their education, and the 
politicians
will legislate it for him.
When that happens all the British doctors leave for America and
the Indian doctors come to Britain. The altruistic get their training and
go back to India, the rest stay happy in a welfare state, paid according
to how many patients they have on their books.  Hooray for capitalism,
it produces quality. 

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:46:50 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:lcvs655oe8c18900gf3dugmrvh2k555dt4@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>>krw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>
>>>With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>
>>>Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>
>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>
>Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>
>Fire trucks - private and paid for by the customers in the form of paid 
>service or insurance.
>
>Schools - private and paid for by the students or their parents, or whoever 
>else decide to *voluntarily* pay for them.
>
>Washington DC is the example of the failure of current tax-funded school 
>system.
>
>Hospitals - paid for by the hospital users.
>
>Cops are already being paid locally, AFAIK. (I do not know details though)
>
>Contract enforcement and repealing external aggressions are only two 
>legitimate roles of the government.
>
>> I suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
>> needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education, which would
>> save a lot of time.
>
>Should we also make food and housing free for all and paid for by taxation? 
>How about entertainment? Cars?
>Oh, I forgot it is called socialism and has been tried in Soviet Union and 
>Eastern block countries.
>Guess how did it end?

You should move to a suitable low-government, voluntary-economy,
defend-yourself country. Botswana comes to mind.

John

On Jul 27, 8:47=A0pm, UltimatePatriot
<UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:51:39 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>
>
>
> <freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:12:15 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> >>>On Jul 26, 1:16=A0pm, John Larkin
> >>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
> >>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >>>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> >>>> >Here are some thoughts....
>
> >>>> >anti-gravity drives
> >>>> >hand-held laser weapons
> >>>> >cloaking devices
> >>>> >speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> >>>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
> >>>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> >>>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> >>>> >Gods?
>
> >>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs an=
d
> >>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
> >>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
> >>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic mov=
ie
> >>>> stars.
>
> >>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>
> >>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>
> >>>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
> >>>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
> >>>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
> >>>vast army of brown-nosed minions. =A0Meaning that one man, woman and
> >>>child out of four has to pay for everything.
>
> >> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> >> everything everybody needs.
>
> >> So what will the other 99% do?
>
> >Either go on the dole, or make wars.
>
> >If Obama gets his socialist agenda crammed down our throat, by 2012
> >the USA will go the way of the USSR.
>
> >Thanks,
> >Rich
>
> >Hope This Helps!
> >Rich
>
> =A0Naw... =A0if he fucks around too much a huge race war will ensue.

nahhh, not unless he starts saying stupid things or acting stupidly..

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:11:54 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:


>Medicine is the least developed of the sciences. There are only two of 
>the medical metods: cutting off the broken parts and keeping you alive 
>so you can heal yourself. They used to chop off the limbs with the axe 
>before, now they do it with lasers and anaesthetics. That's the only 
>difference.

Vaccines. Antibiotics. Preventative medications. Surgery. Medical
imaging. Blood chemistry and pathogen culture lab tests. Artificial
joints. Pacemakers. Transplants. Chemotherapy.

Just as important: using statistical methods to find out what actually
works. 

I've been cured of likely lethal diseases at least twice, stuff that
would have been hopeless 100 years ago. I use a number of drugs that
really improve my life.

Chop off limbs with lasers?

John

Andrew wrote:

> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:k9adnfeZKLjCw_PXnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> 
>>>Start with telecom. ...  Now we have
>>>complete wireless service that nearly rivals the communicators on Star
>>>Trek.
>>
>>So the talkative grandmas can discuss the price of groceries for all
>>their pleasure. What a useful change.
> 
> 
> Yes. For my parents ability to see their grandkids every week via internet 
> is a huge improvement in quality of life.

This can be seen as the other form of addiction; distracting people from 
  the achievement of any goals, either material or spiritual.

>>Medicine is the least developed of the sciences. There are only two of
>>the medical metods: cutting off the broken parts and keeping you alive
>>so you can heal yourself.
> 
> People who have not died from simple infections as they definitely would 150 
> years ago, will disagree with you.

Basic hygiene and the quality of nutrition.

Root of the problem: It is cheaper to raise a new person then to fix the 
broken one. Exactly like the hardware.


>>Nothing changed since the times of Julius Caesar. 
> 
> Human nature have not changed significantly. However eating others become 
> much less popular in the last few thousands years.

Just ~60 years ago, they used to make soap and leather from people as a 
large scale industrial process.  That was in the middle of the civilized 
Europe.

> I would definitely call it an improvement.

Gatling gun is an improvement over the bows and arrows.



Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:euCdnSLh_5KNhvLXnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com...
> Just ~60 years ago, they used to make soap and leather from people as a 
> large scale industrial process.  That was in the middle of the civilized 
> Europe.

Indirect Nazi reference proves you aren't actually arguing anything.

Try again.

Tim

-- 
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms 

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:42:10 -0700, lurch
<lurch@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>> 
>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>Consume it.
>>>
>>>With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>
>>
>>If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>>hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>>the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>>
>>It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>>want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>>
>>Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 
>>
>>John
>>
>
>  I am a total chronic insomniac. That's when I am working.  I get about
>three to five hrs sleep a night.

I sleep 8 to 10 hours a night. I get a lot of work done in my sleep.

John

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:40:14 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:42:10 -0700, lurch
><lurch@yourangcousinitslibrary.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>Consume it.
>>>>
>>>>With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>
>>>
>>>If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>>produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>>>hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>>>the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>>>
>>>It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>>>want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>>>
>>>Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>  I am a total chronic insomniac. That's when I am working.  I get about
>>three to five hrs sleep a night.
>
>I sleep 8 to 10 hours a night. I get a lot of work done in my sleep.
>
>John

Think of how much more productive you would be if you could sleep 24
hours a day. 

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:28:51 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>krw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>
>>>> Consume it.
>>> 
>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>
>>With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>
>>Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
> 
> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from? 

The roads would be built by the people who want roads; they'd pay for
it partly out of their pockets, and partly from tolls.

Admittedly, there does need to be a map room somewhere so when Podunk
and Elbow Bend want a road, there's someplace to coordinate their 
efforts.

The fire trucks would be bought by the people who want to have a fire
department, and probably should be paid for by the people who are prone
to burn their own house down.

The schools - hell, drag your kids to the library and teach them to
read - it doesn't need to cost anything.

Admittedly, libraries are a legitimate function of government (one of
about two or three), but also should be paid for at a local level.

Hospitals? Who needs a hospital? Eat right, get some sleep, some 
exercise, and don't do stuff that results in catastrophic injury.

Cops? Why should I pay to investigate YOUR crimes? Just hire security
guards.

And, finally, if we abolished government entirely, there would be no
wars. People don't make wars, only governments do.

Harry Browne has a few words on this:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/HIFF/

> I
> suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
> needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education,

If you think you can survive in the wilderness with zero education,
you're going to be seriously surprised.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>
>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>> 
>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
> 
> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do those
> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 

Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody wins.

Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a product
or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!

> How do these
> workers learn how to do their job? 

I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn it.

> Where do the manufactured and raw
> materials and supplies come from? 

The same place they always have - from the people who can make a profit
mining them and building stuff.

> Who does the work to get those?

Preferably, the people who want them.

> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?

UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:08:05 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:46:50 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>
>>Should we also make food and housing free for all and paid for by taxation? 
>>How about entertainment? Cars?
>>Oh, I forgot it is called socialism and has been tried in Soviet Union and 
>>Eastern block countries.
>>Guess how did it end?
> 
> You should move to a suitable low-government, voluntary-economy,
> defend-yourself country. Botswana comes to mind.
> 
Actually, I've heard that Kenya is doing pretty well with private
property ownership and free markets.

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:56:55 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin

>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>
>>>> Consume it.
>>>
>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>> 
>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>> 
>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>> 
> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
> productive efforts.
> 
That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
the "logical" thing to do is to become one of the freeloaders, and
soon there's nothing for anybody to eat. (except seeds and twigs and
carrion, of course).

Thanks,
Rich


Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:10:40 -0500, krw wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
> 
>>Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 
> 
> You sound like Slowman now.  It doesn't matter what one "needs".

I'd like to mildly disagree with your word choice. It matters to
the person in question what she/he needs, but it's his/her own
responsibility to get it.

What's wrong is when one dictator tells everyone what he thinks
they "need", which is where the system breaks down.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:17:48 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:10:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>I wouldn't like being the one who has to support 99 lazy bums.
> 
> You wouldn't have to. Chances are 99:1 that you'd be one of the lazy
> bums.

Now you're just being poopy.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:17:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:10:40 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>>>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>>>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>>>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>>>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>>>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>>>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>>>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>Consume it.
>>>>
>>>>With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>
>>>
>>>If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>>produce everything everyone needs, the people who choose to work can
>>>hardly complain that they're being robbed. They would be standing on
>>>the shoulders of the billions who worked to make the world what it is.
>>
>>PErhaps, but 99% of the billions still living do nothing to justify
>>their existence.
>>
>>>It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>>>want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>>
>>I wouldn't like being the one who has to support 99 lazy bums.
>
>You wouldn't have to. Chances are 99:1 that you'd be one of the lazy
>bums.

Nope.  I like what I do.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:54:53 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:10:40 -0500, krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:09:12 -0700, John Larkin
>> 
>>>Would one person need 300 meals a day? 100 houses? 
>> 
>> You sound like Slowman now.  It doesn't matter what one "needs".
>
>I'd like to mildly disagree with your word choice. It matters to
>the person in question what she/he needs, but it's his/her own
>responsibility to get it.

No, in this context it doesn't matter at all.  Just because something
isn't *needed* doesn't mean it's not desired or even justified.  If I
want 100 houses it doesn't matter a whit whether I need them or not.

>What's wrong is when one dictator tells everyone what he thinks
>they "need", which is where the system breaks down.

Yes, and that's the road Larkin was taking.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:48:47 -0700 (PDT), Dave <chachavessel@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 27, 8:47�pm, UltimatePatriot
><UltimatePatr...@thebestcountry.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:51:39 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>>
>>
>>
>> <freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:12:15 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>> >>>On Jul 26, 1:16�pm, John Larkin
>> >>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>> >>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> >>>> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> >>>> >Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> >>>> >anti-gravity drives
>> >>>> >hand-held laser weapons
>> >>>> >cloaking devices
>> >>>> >speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>> >>>> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> >>>> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> >>>> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> >>>> >Gods?
>>
>> >>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
>> >>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>> >>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
>> >>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
>> >>>> stars.
>>
>> >>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>
>> >>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>
>> >>>And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
>> >>>more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
>> >>>another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>> >>>vast army of brown-nosed minions. �Meaning that one man, woman and
>> >>>child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>
>> >> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>> >> everything everybody needs.
>>
>> >> So what will the other 99% do?
>>
>> >Either go on the dole, or make wars.
>>
>> >If Obama gets his socialist agenda crammed down our throat, by 2012
>> >the USA will go the way of the USSR.
>>
>> >Thanks,
>> >Rich
>>
>> >Hope This Helps!
>> >Rich
>>
>> �Naw... �if he fucks around too much a huge race war will ensue.
>
>nahhh, not unless he starts saying stupid things or acting stupidly..

  I guess you have been sleeping for the last year.

  That or you are one of the retards that actually thinks he has a clue.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:40:14 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

> I get a lot of work done in my sleep.

  No...       You do not.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:13:54 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:

>krw wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we =
have?
>>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
>>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
>>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
>>>>>>> cloaking devices
>>>>>>> speech to speech  translators - hand held for any language.
>>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be =
like
>>>>>>> Gods?
>>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs =
and
>>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
>>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed =
potatoes
>>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic =
movie
>>>>>> stars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, =
and
>>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort=
 or
>>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
>>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions.  Meaning that one man, woman and
>>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>
>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Consume it.
>>=20
>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>
>Or the other 1% can just sit with what they produce, being
>unable to sell it. Those would be your choices - "theft" or
>a complete breakdown of the system.

Bzzzt.  Invalid answer, try again please.

John Larkin wrote:


> I sleep 8 to 10 hours a night. I get a lot of work done in my sleep.

I do that too; and I am traveling a lot also. Perhaps I met you in my 
sleep; can you recall that?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:04 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in =
message
>news:9iqs65lolklu6c6ddjk608lbkjckamui92@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:00:48 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>
>>
>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>> produce everything everyone needs,
>
>It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much =
infinite
>and limited only by the means available.
>I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be =
an
>exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.

The views and neat stuff like that would be nice.  I sure do not want
to experience the sustained high acceleration during lift off and
re-entry.
>
>> It's likely that working will be a privilige, not a punishment. I'd
>> want to be one of the 1% who has something productive to do.
>
>Currently 1% of population can produce basic nutrition and simple =
shelters
>for everyone.
>Somehow humans prefer more than that.

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
news:h4ml27312uh@news2.newsguy.com...

> Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>
> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
> productive efforts.

Resources available even on Earth alone are for all practical purposes 
infinite.

-- 
Andrew

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote in message
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Vladimir Vassilevsky" wrote in message

>>>>Start with telecom. ...  Now we have
>>>>complete wireless service that nearly rivals the communicators on Star
>>>>Trek.
>>>
>>>So the talkative grandmas can discuss the price of groceries for all
>>>their pleasure. What a useful change.
>>
>>
>> Yes. For my parents ability to see their grandkids every week via
>> internet
>> is a huge improvement in quality of life.
>
> This can be seen as the other form of addiction; distracting people from
>  the achievement of any goals, either material or spiritual.

My parents think that this particular advanceement helped them and this is 
the only relevant measurement.
The way anybody else see it, including you and me it is irrelevant.
Nobody can define "quality of life" for the particular person, but this 
person himself.


>>>Medicine is the least developed of the sciences. There are only two of
>>>the medical metods: cutting off the broken parts and keeping you alive
>>>so you can heal yourself.
>>
>> People who have not died from simple infections as they definitely would
>> 150
>> years ago, will disagree with you.
>
> Basic hygiene and the quality of nutrition.

Antibiotics,

> Root of the problem: It is cheaper to raise a new person then to fix the
> broken one.

Irrelevant. If broken person wants to be fixed and can pay for it then the 
price is nobody else's business.

> Exactly like the hardware.

You do buy a new house every time there is a water leak, don't you?

>>>Nothing changed since the times of Julius Caesar.
>>
>> Human nature have not changed significantly. However eating others become
>> much less popular in the last few thousands years.
>
> Just ~60 years ago, they used to make soap and leather from people as a
> large scale industrial process.

Since no proof has been found, I'll leave it to the fairy tale and 
propaganda world.

> Gatling gun is an improvement over the bows and arrows.

For the purpose of it, definitely."Guns don't kill people"

-- 
Andrew

"John Larkin" wrote in message

>>Contract enforcement and repealing external aggressions are only two
>>legitimate roles of the government.

>>Should we also make food and housing free for all and paid for by
>>taxation?
>>How about entertainment? Cars?
>>Oh, I forgot it is called socialism and has been tried in Soviet Union and
>>Eastern block countries.
>>Guess how did it end?
>
> You should move to a suitable low-government, voluntary-economy,
> defend-yourself country. Botswana comes to mind.

I am afraid they have a problem with protection of "Life, Liberty and 
Property" and voluntary contract enforcement.

Surprisingly many people do not see the difference between no government at 
all and government doing the limited functions it is supposed to do.

-- 
Andrew

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:04 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>
>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>> produce everything everyone needs,
>
>>It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much infinite
>>and limited only by the means available.
>>I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be an
>>exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.

>The views and neat stuff like that would be nice.  I sure do not want
>to experience the sustained high acceleration during lift off and
>re-entry.

This is the reason to choose shuttle over other means of transportation. 
Acceleration in ascent and especially descent is rather low. Do not remember 
numbers out of my head, but average slightly fit person will survive without 
much discomfort.

-- 
Andrew

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>>
>>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do those
>> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 
> 
> Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody wins.
> 
> Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a product
> or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!
> 
>> How do these
>> workers learn how to do their job? 
> 
> I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn it.
> 
>> Where do the manufactured and raw
>> materials and supplies come from? 
> 
> The same place they always have - from the people who can make a profit
> mining them and building stuff.
> 
>> Who does the work to get those?
> 
> Preferably, the people who want them.
> 
>> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?
> 
> UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
> 
> Hope This Helps!

None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.

/BAH

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:40:14 -0700, John Larkin
> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> 
>> I get a lot of work done in my sleep.
> 
>   No...       You do not.

I solved a lot of pesky problems during my sleeping times.
The trick is to be able to remember after you wake up.

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in 
>>>> message
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that 
>>>>>> great.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>>>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>>> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do those
>>> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 
>>
>> Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody wins.
>>
>> Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a product
>> or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!
>>
>>> How do these
>>> workers learn how to do their job? 
>>
>> I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn it.
>>
>>> Where do the manufactured and raw
>>> materials and supplies come from? 
>>
>> The same place they always have - from the people who can make a profit
>> mining them and building stuff.
>>
>>> Who does the work to get those?
>>
>> Preferably, the people who want them.
>>
>>> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?
>>
>> UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
>>
>> Hope This Helps!
> 
> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
> 
> /BAH

The premise of the thought experiment is a very high level of
automation - "1000 years from now". UPS, FedEx, DHL all use existing 
high levels of automation to route and account for packages; it's just
a matter of extending the principle.

Ditto mining.

--
Les Cargill

Andrew wrote:
> "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:04 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>> produce everything everyone needs,
>>> It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much infinite
>>> and limited only by the means available.
>>> I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be an
>>> exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.
> 
>> The views and neat stuff like that would be nice.  I sure do not want
>> to experience the sustained high acceleration during lift off and
>> re-entry.
> 
> This is the reason to choose shuttle over other means of transportation. 
> Acceleration in ascent and especially descent is rather low. Do not remember 
> numbers out of my head, but average slightly fit person will survive without 
> much discomfort.

Apart from the ones that explode either on launch or reentry. The 
mission fatality rate for the shuttle isn't very good. Being blown apart 
is neither survivable nor without sudden and serious discomfort.

Shuttle I think is around 3g whereas Apollo moon missions reentry peak 
was ~7g.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:05:42 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:04 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>>
>>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>> produce everything everyone needs,
>>
>>>It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much infinite
>>>and limited only by the means available.
>>>I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be an
>>>exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.
>
>>The views and neat stuff like that would be nice.  I sure do not want
>>to experience the sustained high acceleration during lift off and
>>re-entry.
>
>This is the reason to choose shuttle over other means of transportation. 
>Acceleration in ascent and especially descent is rather low. Do not remember 
>numbers out of my head, but average slightly fit person will survive without 
>much discomfort.

Except the two shuttles full of people who didn't.

John

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.

Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
maybe?

Thanks,
Rich

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
> 
> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
> maybe?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich
> 


You guys have really missed the point, and by quite a wide margin.
But it's pretty clear from this thread that we won't have
to worry about it - the social norms will make sure everybody
is working as inefficiently as possible. Because that's
better than freeloading, right?

--
Les Cargill

On Jul 24, 8:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

A thousand years? Try 150.
Think back to what civilization was like 1000 years ago and ask
yourself whether they would have had ANY DREAM of what today would
have been like.
I guarantee you that what the world will look like 1000 years from now
will be dominated by things we cannot even guess.

PD

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>news:h4ml27312uh@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that =
great.
>>>
>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>> productive efforts.
>
>Resources available even on Earth alone are for all practical purposes=20
>infinite.

Really??  The surface of the earth in not infinite.  The volume of the
earth is not infinite.  The total daily solar flux is not infinite.
QED the resources of this planet are NOT infinite.  They are not even
a piss poor approximation.  Take a hard look at known coal and oil
reserves and current annual use rates.  How long until your kids run
out?

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gmu175h1vherhtc0aoa2tnbvv9fg3a400f@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>news:h4ml27312uh@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>
>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>> productive efforts.
>
>Resources available even on Earth alone are for all practical purposes
>infinite.

> Really??

Really.

> The surface of the earth in not infinite.  The volume of the
> earth is not infinite.  The total daily solar flux is not infinite.
> QED the resources of this planet are NOT infinite.

In mathematical sense - they are not. In practical sense - they are.
Amount of resources available is not the limiting factor for the humans.

> Take a hard look at known coal and oil
> reserves and current annual use rates.

Oil - 50+ years
Coal - 140+ years.
Nuclear fission - 300+ years

> How long until your kids run out?

I would like for my kids to live 150+ years, but I seriously doubt it will 
happen.
So no, my kids will not run out of oil or coal, or anything else for that 
matter.

===
In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city 
would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator 
of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to 
Manhattan's third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of 
almost unimaginable dimensions loomed.
===


-- 
Andrew

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> Andrew wrote:
>> "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:04 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>>> produce everything everyone needs,
>>>> It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much
>>>> infinite
>>>> and limited only by the means available.
>>>> I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be
>>>> an
>>>> exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.
>>
>>> The views and neat stuff like that would be nice.  I sure do not want
>>> to experience the sustained high acceleration during lift off and
>>> re-entry.
>>
>> This is the reason to choose shuttle over other means of transportation.
>> Acceleration in ascent and especially descent is rather low. Do not
>> remember
>> numbers out of my head, but average slightly fit person will survive
>> without
>> much discomfort.
>
> Apart from the ones that explode either on launch or reentry. The
> mission fatality rate for the shuttle isn't very good. Being blown apart
> is neither survivable nor without sudden and serious discomfort.

You may die in car accident too. It is not a good enough reason not to drive 
a car.

> Shuttle I think is around 3g whereas Apollo moon missions reentry peak
> was ~7g.

3g for a few minutes is not too bad.

-- 
Andrew

Les Cargill wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in 
>>>>> message
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that 
>>>>>>> great.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>>>>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>>>> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do those
>>>> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 
>>>
>>> Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody wins.
>>>
>>> Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a product
>>> or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!
>>>
>>>> How do these
>>>> workers learn how to do their job? 
>>>
>>> I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn it.
>>>
>>>> Where do the manufactured and raw
>>>> materials and supplies come from? 
>>>
>>> The same place they always have - from the people who can make a profit
>>> mining them and building stuff.
>>>
>>>> Who does the work to get those?
>>>
>>> Preferably, the people who want them.
>>>
>>>> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?
>>>
>>> UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
>>>
>>> Hope This Helps!
>>
>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>
>> /BAH
> 
> The premise of the thought experiment is a very high level of
> automation - "1000 years from now". UPS, FedEx, DHL all use existing 
> high levels of automation to route and account for packages; it's just
> a matter of extending the principle.
> 
> Ditto mining.
> 
You obviously have no idea how work gets done.

/BAH

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
> 
> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
> maybe?
> 
You certainly wouldn't be allowed to use your computer, which
you wouldn't own, to post here.

/BAH

Andrew wrote:
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 05:52:04 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>>>> If technology reaches the point where only 1% of the population can
>>>>> produce everything everyone needs,
>>>>> It is impossible to reach this point. Human wants are pretty much
>>>>> infinite
>>>>> and limited only by the means available.
>>>>> I would like to fly in a space shuttle, never been in space, should be
>>>>> an
>>>>> exciting ride and spe6ctacular view.
>>>> The views and neat stuff like that would be nice.  I sure do not want
>>>> to experience the sustained high acceleration during lift off and
>>>> re-entry.
>>> This is the reason to choose shuttle over other means of transportation.
>>> Acceleration in ascent and especially descent is rather low. Do not
>>> remember
>>> numbers out of my head, but average slightly fit person will survive
>>> without
>>> much discomfort.
>> Apart from the ones that explode either on launch or reentry. The
>> mission fatality rate for the shuttle isn't very good. Being blown apart
>> is neither survivable nor without sudden and serious discomfort.
> 
> You may die in car accident too. It is not a good enough reason not to drive 
> a car.
> 
>> Shuttle I think is around 3g whereas Apollo moon missions reentry peak
>> was ~7g.
> 
> 3g for a few minutes is not too bad.
> 
Only if it increases or decreases slowly.

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote 
>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever 
>>>>>>>> that great.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>>>>>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>>>>> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do those
>>>>> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 
>>>>
>>>> Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody wins.
>>>>
>>>> Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a product
>>>> or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!
>>>>
>>>>> How do these
>>>>> workers learn how to do their job? 
>>>>
>>>> I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn it.
>>>>
>>>>> Where do the manufactured and raw
>>>>> materials and supplies come from? 
>>>>
>>>> The same place they always have - from the people who can make a profit
>>>> mining them and building stuff.
>>>>
>>>>> Who does the work to get those?
>>>>
>>>> Preferably, the people who want them.
>>>>
>>>>> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?
>>>>
>>>> UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Hope This Helps!
>>>
>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> The premise of the thought experiment is a very high level of
>> automation - "1000 years from now". UPS, FedEx, DHL all use existing 
>> high levels of automation to route and account for packages; it's just
>> a matter of extending the principle.
>>
>> Ditto mining.
>>
> You obviously have no idea how work gets done.
> 
> /BAH

I'm afraid I do. That's one reason I think the trend
will continue. I figure half of time served ( or more )
in most corporations is spent on either overhead or
economic signaling. Just pure process engineering
can knock half the cost out of some stuff. I
personally have done things that ended up costing
about 10% of what the original estimate was.

There is a great deal of Mickey Mouse in the world. Over
time, it goes away. Best Buy corporation went hard
after telecommuting just to get rid of pack mentality
and achieved very good results.

"The sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know
how to stay quietly in his room." - Blaise Pascal.

--
Les Cargill

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>> 
>> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
>> maybe?
>> 
> You certainly wouldn't be allowed to use your computer, which
> you wouldn't own, to post here.
> 

By "you" in this sentence, are you referring to:
a) some generic person, a la "one"?
b) yourself?
c) me, specifically?
d) something else?

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:48:57 -0700, JosephKK wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
>>"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>
>>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>>> productive efforts.
>>
>>Resources available even on Earth alone are for all practical purposes 
>>infinite.
> 
> Really??  The surface of the earth in not infinite.  The volume of the
> earth is not infinite.  The total daily solar flux is not infinite.
> QED the resources of this planet are NOT infinite.  They are not even
> a piss poor approximation.  Take a hard look at known coal and oil
> reserves and current annual use rates.  How long until your kids run
> out?

To the typical roob in the street, "infinity" is "the amount of
electricity in the wall socket."

I didn't make this up, but I can't remember who first said it. Probably
someone of the calibre of Feynman, or maybe Harlan Ellison. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:00:38 -0500, Andrew wrote:
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> 
>> Shuttle I think is around 3g whereas Apollo moon missions reentry peak
>> was ~7g.
> 
> 3g for a few minutes is not too bad.

It must feel awfully good when it stops! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Jul 24, 8:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.

(We can't be sure of that...)

> Here are some thoughts....

You're making premises that, themselves, have to be questioned (not
the least of which is the second word of your reply). I could just
leave it at that and call that the "short answer". But, the "long
answer" is much more interesting. (And note the followup line)

The recently departed Nelson Bond discussed and answered that very
question in a Sci. Fi. trilogy written in 1939-1941 -- the Meg Series.
The last of the stories was even featured on the cover of the February
1941 edition of "Astounding Science Fiction". To give you an idea of
what that means: Robert Heinlein only got 2nd billing in that edition.
Bond's 1939 story was also partly based on the 1937 "By the Waters of
Babylon" (aka "Place of the Gods"), which had the same surprise
ending. Rod Serling of Twilight Zone fame used a variation of that
ending (and the ending in the 3rd Meg Series story) in the 1968
screenplay he is famous for and the movie sequel to his 1968
screenplay borrowed heavily from the 3rd of Bond's trilogy.

(The magazine cover is the 4th picture down from the top at
http://fantasticreviews.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html and shows
the ending of the 3rd story. LOOK FAMILIAR?!)

The answer given below will completely overturn your premise. Neither
evolution, nor history need to progress in an invariably "forward
direction".

I'll give you an excerpt from the reworked version of the first of the
stories (note: I actually had a chance to briefly discuss with Bond
the prospect of making his stories into a film, and this is an
outgrowth of the project).

In the rewriting, the "history" that's told by the characters of the
"Ancient Ones" -- their quotes, the writings -- are all from the real
world, so the run-up to the 35th century setting is more than
plausible (e.g., there actually was a recent report in the science
news of 4-legged ape-like humans evolving from ordinary humans -- the
ones in Turkey who made the news recently; and the narrative voice-
over, below, is mostly a recitation of a real-world manifesto written
and published in 1968).

Scene 1: The Prologue
History marches on in scene after scene. Historical figures flash in
and out: Caesar, Cleopatra, Napoleon, Catherine the Great,
Charlemagne, Elizabeth I, Alexander and others. Depictions flash by of
slavery and oppression. One-by-one, the images come and go at a faster
and faster pace as the ominous tone becomes imposing.

The march of history reaches the 20th century, the background tone
breaks into a cacophony. Now clips from videos, television broadcasts
and movies appear in the mix. The images are now going rapid-fire: in
some, you catch glimpses of mass protests, in others: you see flashes
from the 1960's and 1970's of groups representing major movements, and
counter-culture.

In others, still, you see the rapidly changing fashions, or footage of
wars becoming world wars: I, II, then III (the Cold War), then IV (the
War on Terrorism).

The cacophony in the background is now breaking out into red alert
alarm mode. Pictures of domestic abuse, war and violence, terrorism,
gang rapes, child prostitution are flying by faster than you can catch
them. Everything is out of control.

Further scenes, flashing by almost too fast to see, show more anger,
backlash, people languishing in the midst of squalor, major tidal
waves and earthquakes, people fighting and getting out of control. It
all culminates in a rapid fire sequence of pictures showing massively
destructive attacks, nuclear blasts, terrorist attacks, buildings
falling, people running in despair.

At climax, we see huge bombs going off, rockets being fired into the
sky, the music stops abruptly, punctuated by the loud scream of
despair, as the earth rapidly recedes into a spinning starfield in the
black void of outer space - as if seen from the vantage point of a
desperately rushed exodus.

The screams reverberate into the dying echoes of a lost world, the
stars fade out, and all goes back to black and silence once more.

Scene 2: Beware of Man
(Hint: look at the magazine cover referred to above, again).

Slowly, like waking up from a long slumber, from the blackness a new
picture comes into view and focus. It's the middle of a forest. A
subtitle appears

"Based on a 1939 story, by Nelson S. Bond"

The subtitle fades out, and natural back-country sounds appear, wild
animal-like men are seen rummaging around in the woods.

In a narrative, a female voice with an almost whispering, soft,
quality begins reciting the verse,

"Beware of the creature called Man."

Drum beats are suddenly heard in the distance, and the wild men
milling about in the forest jump in startled fear and begin to run
off. Sporadic at first, the drum beats become regular and incessant,
proceeding in a steady rhythm, accent on every third beat. The rhythm
is incessant, boom, boom, BOOM, boom, boom, BOOM, boom, boom,
BOOM, ...

The narration goes on, with the flashing scenes and drum beat in the
background.

"He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes."

The wild creatures are running in the woods, chased down almost in
sync with the drum beats. Glimpses of the grotesque-looking hunters in
hot pursuit peek briefly in and out through the rustling of the dense
foliage.

"...and he is far worse off than the apes..."

There is a rapid-pan switch back and forth between the wild men and
their pursuers, the steady 2+1 drum rhythm continuing in the
background  At this point, one finally gets a first good look at the
wild men, in the middle of the brush and thickets. They're snarling,
shrieking, running in a stooped-over fashion.

";...because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of
negative feelings:..."

Almost as if on cue, we catch brief glimpses of the hunters, here and
there, being savagely jumped on by the wild men, before the men are
pried off by more hunters who come out of the brush. We begin to
recognize that the ones chasing after the wild man-like creatures are
not actually grotesque creatures at all, but are only wearing masks
that make them appear that way. We don't know who or what is under the
masks.

"...hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust,..."

The chase herds the men-like creatures out of the woods into a
clearing, where they are run into large nets awaiting them held by
more of the masked, disguised hunters, as the narrator continues her
litany,

"...guilt, shame, doubt."

The nets are closed around the quarry, which is then taken fully out
of the forest to the nearby village. The man-like creatures are
screeching and clawing from within the net as they are helplessly
dragged along on the ground, entangled in the net.

The drum rhythm continues to be heard all this while in the
background, continuing its unrelenting 2+1 tempo.

There is a transition to a new setting within the village, which is
seen to have human inhabitants. This only heightens the confusion and
suspense. There are ordinary-looking humans seen milling about
outdoors carrying about their daily business as if there were nothing
unusual going on.

Still, the same drum rhythm is heard, even in the village.

Then comes the narrator's punch-line:

"And moreover, he is *aware* of what *he* is..."

Gradually, it becomes apparent that none of the humans in the village
are men.

The drum rhythm stops abruptly, punctuated by the loud screams of the
voices of women clamoring in unison.

"...and he is aware of what he is *not*"

Just at that moment, the hunters take off their masks, From beneath
the masks emerges the flowing hair and faces of women. The captured
wild men are placed in a forested cage.

The opening score starts up. It is a melody hauntingly familiar,
reminiscent of "Our Country 'Tis of Thee";, taking an off-key left-
turn that makes it almost unrecognizable.

(The Wild Ones -- the ape-like men -- are basically Bond's equivalent
of the Morlocks in HG Wells "Time Machine". They do some pretty
terruble things, as seen in later scenes -- and some equally terrible
things are done to them; the first part of the story is brutally
savage (and the Wild Ones' designation as "Predators" is well-earned).
There are sentient fully-upright male humans in this world -- but only
one appears in the second half of the story. You'll quickly recognize
which character in the 1968 movie he is analogous to.)

On Jul 25, 12:18=A0am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We will find an answer - we always do..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"I ain't gonna die, I haven't yet"

On Jul 24, 9:43=A0pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Here are some thoughts....
>
> anti-gravity drives
> hand-held laser weapons
> cloaking devices
> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> Gods?

Forked sticks
big rocks
Big rocks wedged into forked sticks - hot new technology, or
misbegotten boondoggle?

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:37:17 -0700 (PDT), z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net>
wrote:

>On Jul 24, 9:43�pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> anti-gravity drives
>> hand-held laser weapons
>> cloaking devices
>> speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> Gods?
>
>Forked sticks
>big rocks
>Big rocks wedged into forked sticks - hot new technology, or
>misbegotten boondoggle?


 The earliest example of Lacrosse?

Rock Brentwood wrote:
> On Jul 24, 8:43 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> 
> (We can't be sure of that...)

It is a screen play!

>> Here are some thoughts....
> 
> You're making premises that, themselves, have to be questioned (not
> the least of which is the second word of your reply). I could just
> leave it at that and call that the "short answer". But, the "long
> answer" is much more interesting. (And note the followup line)

Didn't they do this on Mars, woman rulers and all? Something from the 
50's as I recall....


> 
> The recently departed Nelson Bond discussed and answered that very
> question in a Sci. Fi. trilogy written in 1939-1941 -- the Meg Series.
> The last of the stories was even featured on the cover of the February
> 1941 edition of "Astounding Science Fiction". To give you an idea of
> what that means: Robert Heinlein only got 2nd billing in that edition.
> Bond's 1939 story was also partly based on the 1937 "By the Waters of
> Babylon" (aka "Place of the Gods"), which had the same surprise
> ending. Rod Serling of Twilight Zone fame used a variation of that
> ending (and the ending in the 3rd Meg Series story) in the 1968
> screenplay he is famous for and the movie sequel to his 1968
> screenplay borrowed heavily from the 3rd of Bond's trilogy.
> 
> (The magazine cover is the 4th picture down from the top at
> http://fantasticreviews.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html and shows
> the ending of the 3rd story. LOOK FAMILIAR?!)
> 
> The answer given below will completely overturn your premise. Neither
> evolution, nor history need to progress in an invariably "forward
> direction".
> 
> I'll give you an excerpt from the reworked version of the first of the
> stories (note: I actually had a chance to briefly discuss with Bond
> the prospect of making his stories into a film, and this is an
> outgrowth of the project).
> 
> In the rewriting, the "history" that's told by the characters of the
> "Ancient Ones" -- their quotes, the writings -- are all from the real
> world, so the run-up to the 35th century setting is more than
> plausible (e.g., there actually was a recent report in the science
> news of 4-legged ape-like humans evolving from ordinary humans -- the
> ones in Turkey who made the news recently; and the narrative voice-
> over, below, is mostly a recitation of a real-world manifesto written
> and published in 1968).
> 
> Scene 1: The Prologue
> History marches on in scene after scene. Historical figures flash in
> and out: Caesar, Cleopatra, Napoleon, Catherine the Great,
> Charlemagne, Elizabeth I, Alexander and others. Depictions flash by of
> slavery and oppression. One-by-one, the images come and go at a faster
> and faster pace as the ominous tone becomes imposing.
> 
> The march of history reaches the 20th century, the background tone
> breaks into a cacophony. Now clips from videos, television broadcasts
> and movies appear in the mix. The images are now going rapid-fire: in
> some, you catch glimpses of mass protests, in others: you see flashes
> from the 1960's and 1970's of groups representing major movements, and
> counter-culture.
> 
> In others, still, you see the rapidly changing fashions, or footage of
> wars becoming world wars: I, II, then III (the Cold War), then IV (the
> War on Terrorism).
> 
> The cacophony in the background is now breaking out into red alert
> alarm mode. Pictures of domestic abuse, war and violence, terrorism,
> gang rapes, child prostitution are flying by faster than you can catch
> them. Everything is out of control.
> 
> Further scenes, flashing by almost too fast to see, show more anger,
> backlash, people languishing in the midst of squalor, major tidal
> waves and earthquakes, people fighting and getting out of control. It
> all culminates in a rapid fire sequence of pictures showing massively
> destructive attacks, nuclear blasts, terrorist attacks, buildings
> falling, people running in despair.
> 
> At climax, we see huge bombs going off, rockets being fired into the
> sky, the music stops abruptly, punctuated by the loud scream of
> despair, as the earth rapidly recedes into a spinning starfield in the
> black void of outer space - as if seen from the vantage point of a
> desperately rushed exodus.
> 
> The screams reverberate into the dying echoes of a lost world, the
> stars fade out, and all goes back to black and silence once more.
> 
> Scene 2: Beware of Man
> (Hint: look at the magazine cover referred to above, again).
> 
> Slowly, like waking up from a long slumber, from the blackness a new
> picture comes into view and focus. It's the middle of a forest. A
> subtitle appears
> 
> "Based on a 1939 story, by Nelson S. Bond"
> 
> The subtitle fades out, and natural back-country sounds appear, wild
> animal-like men are seen rummaging around in the woods.
> 
> In a narrative, a female voice with an almost whispering, soft,
> quality begins reciting the verse,
> 
> "Beware of the creature called Man."
> 
> Drum beats are suddenly heard in the distance, and the wild men
> milling about in the forest jump in startled fear and begin to run
> off. Sporadic at first, the drum beats become regular and incessant,
> proceeding in a steady rhythm, accent on every third beat. The rhythm
> is incessant, boom, boom, BOOM, boom, boom, BOOM, boom, boom,
> BOOM, ...
> 
> The narration goes on, with the flashing scenes and drum beat in the
> background.
> 
> "He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes."
> 
> The wild creatures are running in the woods, chased down almost in
> sync with the drum beats. Glimpses of the grotesque-looking hunters in
> hot pursuit peek briefly in and out through the rustling of the dense
> foliage.
> 
> "...and he is far worse off than the apes..."
> 
> There is a rapid-pan switch back and forth between the wild men and
> their pursuers, the steady 2+1 drum rhythm continuing in the
> background  At this point, one finally gets a first good look at the
> wild men, in the middle of the brush and thickets. They're snarling,
> shrieking, running in a stooped-over fashion.
> 
> ";...because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of
> negative feelings:..."
> 
> Almost as if on cue, we catch brief glimpses of the hunters, here and
> there, being savagely jumped on by the wild men, before the men are
> pried off by more hunters who come out of the brush. We begin to
> recognize that the ones chasing after the wild man-like creatures are
> not actually grotesque creatures at all, but are only wearing masks
> that make them appear that way. We don't know who or what is under the
> masks.
> 
> "...hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust,..."
> 
> The chase herds the men-like creatures out of the woods into a
> clearing, where they are run into large nets awaiting them held by
> more of the masked, disguised hunters, as the narrator continues her
> litany,
> 
> "...guilt, shame, doubt."
> 
> The nets are closed around the quarry, which is then taken fully out
> of the forest to the nearby village. The man-like creatures are
> screeching and clawing from within the net as they are helplessly
> dragged along on the ground, entangled in the net.
> 
> The drum rhythm continues to be heard all this while in the
> background, continuing its unrelenting 2+1 tempo.
> 
> There is a transition to a new setting within the village, which is
> seen to have human inhabitants. This only heightens the confusion and
> suspense. There are ordinary-looking humans seen milling about
> outdoors carrying about their daily business as if there were nothing
> unusual going on.
> 
> Still, the same drum rhythm is heard, even in the village.
> 
> Then comes the narrator's punch-line:
> 
> "And moreover, he is *aware* of what *he* is..."
> 
> Gradually, it becomes apparent that none of the humans in the village
> are men.
> 
> The drum rhythm stops abruptly, punctuated by the loud screams of the
> voices of women clamoring in unison.
> 
> "...and he is aware of what he is *not*"
> 
> Just at that moment, the hunters take off their masks, From beneath
> the masks emerges the flowing hair and faces of women. The captured
> wild men are placed in a forested cage.
> 
> The opening score starts up. It is a melody hauntingly familiar,
> reminiscent of "Our Country 'Tis of Thee";, taking an off-key left-
> turn that makes it almost unrecognizable.
> 
> (The Wild Ones -- the ape-like men -- are basically Bond's equivalent
> of the Morlocks in HG Wells "Time Machine". They do some pretty
> terruble things, as seen in later scenes -- and some equally terrible
> things are done to them; the first part of the story is brutally
> savage (and the Wild Ones' designation as "Predators" is well-earned).
> There are sentient fully-upright male humans in this world -- but only
> one appears in the second half of the story. You'll quickly recognize
> which character in the 1968 movie he is analogous to.)

Les Cargill wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote 
>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever 
>>>>>>>>> that great.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?
>>>>>>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>>>>>> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do 
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody wins.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a product
>>>>> or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do these
>>>>>> workers learn how to do their job? 
>>>>>
>>>>> I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do the manufactured and raw
>>>>>> materials and supplies come from? 
>>>>>
>>>>> The same place they always have - from the people who can make a 
>>>>> profit
>>>>> mining them and building stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who does the work to get those?
>>>>>
>>>>> Preferably, the people who want them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?
>>>>>
>>>>> UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope This Helps!
>>>>
>>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>>>
>>>> /BAH
>>>
>>> The premise of the thought experiment is a very high level of
>>> automation - "1000 years from now". UPS, FedEx, DHL all use existing 
>>> high levels of automation to route and account for packages; it's just
>>> a matter of extending the principle.
>>>
>>> Ditto mining.
>>>
>> You obviously have no idea how work gets done.
>>
>> /BAH
> 
> I'm afraid I do. That's one reason I think the trend
> will continue. I figure half of time served ( or more )
> in most corporations is spent on either overhead or
> economic signaling. Just pure process engineering
> can knock half the cost out of some stuff. I
> personally have done things that ended up costing
> about 10% of what the original estimate was.
> 
> There is a great deal of Mickey Mouse in the world. Over
> time, it goes away. Best Buy corporation went hard
> after telecommuting just to get rid of pack mentality
> and achieved very good results.
> 
> "The sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know
> how to stay quietly in his room." - Blaise Pascal.
> 
IT is computerized paper pushing/pulling.  I was talking about
the work that makes or repairs useful stuff, not the attendant
paperwork.

/BAH

Rich Grise wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
>>> maybe?
>>>
>> You certainly wouldn't be allowed to use your computer, which
>> you wouldn't own, to post here.
>>
> 
> By "you" in this sentence, are you referring to:
> a) some generic person, a la "one"?
> b) yourself?
> c) me, specifically?
> d) something else?
> 
Yes.

/BAH

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:38:42 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:03:13 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>>> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
>>>> maybe?
>>>>
>>> You certainly wouldn't be allowed to use your computer, which
>>> you wouldn't own, to post here.
>>>
>> 
>> By "you" in this sentence, are you referring to:
>> a) some generic person, a la "one"?
>> b) yourself?
>> c) me, specifically?
>> d) something else?
>> 
> Yes.
> 

;-)

Thanks!
Rich

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:24:24 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote 
>>>>>>>> in message
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>>>>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever 
>>>>>>>>>> that great.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come 
>>>>>>>>> from?
>>>>>>>> Roads - private and paid for by the road users.
>>>>>>> Sigh!  Who does the maintenance and construction work?  Where do 
>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>> road users get money to pay for using the roads? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of gasoline taxes? Call it a "user fee" and everybody 
>>>>>> wins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where they get their money is where everybody gets it - find a 
>>>>>> product
>>>>>> or skill that people will pay you for, and sell it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do these
>>>>>>> workers learn how to do their job? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dunno - I suppose they'd get up off their fat asses and go learn 
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do the manufactured and raw
>>>>>>> materials and supplies come from? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same place they always have - from the people who can make a 
>>>>>> profit
>>>>>> mining them and building stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who does the work to get those?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Preferably, the people who want them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who does the work to deliver anything on time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope This Helps!
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>>>>
>>>>> /BAH
>>>>
>>>> The premise of the thought experiment is a very high level of
>>>> automation - "1000 years from now". UPS, FedEx, DHL all use existing 
>>>> high levels of automation to route and account for packages; it's just
>>>> a matter of extending the principle.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto mining.
>>>>
>>> You obviously have no idea how work gets done.
>>>
>>> /BAH
>>
>> I'm afraid I do. That's one reason I think the trend
>> will continue. I figure half of time served ( or more )
>> in most corporations is spent on either overhead or
>> economic signaling. Just pure process engineering
>> can knock half the cost out of some stuff. I
>> personally have done things that ended up costing
>> about 10% of what the original estimate was.
>>
>> There is a great deal of Mickey Mouse in the world. Over
>> time, it goes away. Best Buy corporation went hard
>> after telecommuting just to get rid of pack mentality
>> and achieved very good results.
>>
>> "The sole cause of man's unhappiness is that he does not know
>> how to stay quietly in his room." - Blaise Pascal.
>>
> IT is computerized paper pushing/pulling.

Not all of it. That gets the most press, but the majority
of economic impact of electronics is from replacing
mechanical systems in goods with much cheaper
electronics.

> I was talking about
> the work that makes or repairs useful stuff, not the attendant
> paperwork.
> 
> /BAH

Ignoring repair for the moment, an awful lot of stuff is made
at a high level of automation. The series "How It's Made"
shows a lot of this. The guts of stuff is also increasingly
made cheaper by this progression.

--
Les Cargill

On Jul 24, 10:02=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
> Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.
>
>
>
> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> > anti-gravity drives
> > hand-held laser weapons
> > cloaking devices
> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> > Gods?
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What an idiocy.
>
> So-called modern civilization is based exclusively on the availability
> of the cheap oil.

Largely but not exclusively.

On Jul 25, 8:44=A0am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:31:04 +1000) it happened Sylvia Else
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in
> <00a345f3$0$31993$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>:
>
>
>
> >Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:20:07 +1000) it happened Sylvia El=
se
> >> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in
> >> <4a6aa3e8$0$15999$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>:
>
> >>> Bart! wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:26:39 +1000, Sylvia Else
> >>>> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Just the thing to defeat the hand held laser weapons.
> >>>> =A0Not if they strafe.
> >>> Even then. A cloaking device must allow all light to pass through fro=
m
> >>> one side to the other, without being intercepted by the thing being
> >>> cloaked. If it doesn't then it won't function as a cloaking device.
>
> >> Na, use smoke bomb, much simpler and available now.
>
> >I think the idea of a cloaking device is to be inconspicious. A smoke
> >bomb doesn't fit that description.
>
> >Sylvia.
>
> By the definition, or meaning of, 'inconspicious', from:
> =A0http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_inconspicious_mean
> =A0It means to be not very noticeable.
> Example:
> "The mouse was inconspicious amongst the crowd of people"
>
> The man was not very noticeable in the cloud of smoke.

This reminds me of the old Superman episode where Lois dreams she is
marrying Superman, but the bad guys have planted a bomb in the wedding
cake: and wrapped it with lead foil to defeat Superman's x-ray vision.
Well, it was only Lois's dream, it didn't have to make sense.

> You can hide tanks, soldiers, even planes, in a cloud [of smoke].
> Set up a bush fire to hide an advancing army.
> Much cheaper and better then any hightech not yet, and perhaps never, exi=
sting solution.
> Clouding radar with alu foil strips is the same idea, hiding aircraft
> or aircraft's exact position.
>
> From a technical POV, I seriously doubt the current proposed cloaking sys=
tems that are based
> on negative reflective index if I understood it right, will work over the=
 full visible spectrum,
> let alone in radio and IR at the same time.
> So, back to the smoke :-)

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <4a708ab2$0$5647$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> Les Cargill  <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
>>> maybe?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>> You guys have really missed the point, and by quite a wide margin.
>> But it's pretty clear from this thread that we won't have
>> to worry about it - the social norms will make sure everybody
>> is working as inefficiently as possible. Because that's
>> better than freeloading, right?
> 
> This process is underway, and has proceeded farther than most think.
> Think of the US. First 1% of the population is put in jail. Than 3% of
> the productive population is payed to put them there or keep
> them there. 1% of the population serves in health care, and 3% is
> busy defending the health care workers against legal threats.
> (Disclaimer: actual figures may be different, but you get the drift.)
> 

That's at present levels of state of the art. If anything, the
number of people in prison is because there's a great many people
employed in the shadow economy, people who are "surplus" and
still have to live, somehow. The legal constraints on medical
care is because the medical guilds don't operate very efficiently
in policing their own ranks.

IOW, ambulance chasers seek part of the economic rent
gained by medical practitioners in exchange for
policing medical malpractice.

> Maybe the great "Crach" of 2009 will be remembered in history
> as the start of the era of "artificial inefficiency", the only
> way to keep an outdated economic model running for another
> decade or so.
> 

I think you're off by 80 years. There's been a mix of
"artificial inefficiency" and relentless cost
reduction for a long time now.

> And of course we don't need money to go around. If there are no
> bosses on my neck to force me to do my job in a bad fashion,
> I'd be glad to be one of the 1% to put in a days work for
> food, clothing and free health care.
> 
> If you are a good surgeon, would you quit your job because
> 99% of the population just lies on the beach?

No. The 1% thing is an abstract, fictional figure - assume
one of those magic wands Bones used to use on Star Trek
being what passes for "surgery". Or something. Obviously,
cost can only be driven down so far.

Would surgeons do it only for status? Probably.

> Or if you were Madonna, would you stop performing?
> 
>> --
>> Les Cargill
> 
> Groetjes Albert
> 
> --

--
Les Cargill

In article <4a708ab2$0$5647$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Les Cargill  <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:03:03 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> None of the above can be done using only 1% of the population.
>>
>> Then maybe a 99% freeloader population isn't such a great idea,
>> maybe?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>>
>
>
>You guys have really missed the point, and by quite a wide margin.
>But it's pretty clear from this thread that we won't have
>to worry about it - the social norms will make sure everybody
>is working as inefficiently as possible. Because that's
>better than freeloading, right?

This process is underway, and has proceeded farther than most think.
Think of the US. First 1% of the population is put in jail. Than 3% of
the productive population is payed to put them there or keep
them there. 1% of the population serves in health care, and 3% is
busy defending the health care workers against legal threats.
(Disclaimer: actual figures may be different, but you get the drift.)

Maybe the great "Crach" of 2009 will be remembered in history
as the start of the era of "artificial inefficiency", the only
way to keep an outdated economic model running for another
decade or so.

And of course we don't need money to go around. If there are no
bosses on my neck to force me to do my job in a bad fashion,
I'd be glad to be one of the 1% to put in a days work for
food, clothing and free health care.

If you are a good surgeon, would you quit your job because
99% of the population just lies on the beach?
Or if you were Madonna, would you stop performing?

>
>--
>Les Cargill

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:56:55 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consume it.
>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>
>>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>>> productive efforts.
>>>
>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
> 
> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?

Is it? Part of why there are things for Windows
that are just not there for Linux is because
Windows appeals to people seeking status.

Linux does status, but less efficiently than
having real sales figures will. How else
can you explain people suffering the horror
that is M$ to do development? Er, other
than the alternatives are somehow worse.

> Why are you going to the trouble of telling me this,
> without getting paid for it?
> People like to get paid... Hmmmm...

Well.... yeah. Then again, the "alpha geek" culture *in
general* that started about 1999 was never going to work.

> Can't we agree on: "people like to get something in return" ?
> 
>> the "logical" thing to do is to become one of the freeloaders, and
>> soon there's nothing for anybody to eat. (except seeds and twigs and
>> carrion, of course).
> 
>> Rich
> 
> Groetjes Albert
> 
> --

--
Les Cargill

In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:56:55 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>
>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Consume it.
>>>>
>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>
>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>
>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>
>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>> productive efforts.
>>
>That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,

Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
Why are you going to the trouble of telling me this,
without getting paid for it?
People like to get paid... Hmmmm...
Can't we agree on: "people like to get something in return" ?

>the "logical" thing to do is to become one of the freeloaders, and
>soon there's nothing for anybody to eat. (except seeds and twigs and
>carrion, of course).

>Rich

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:57:53 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:56:55 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>
>>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consume it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>>
>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>
>>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>>> productive efforts.
>>>
>>That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>>consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>>simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>>especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
> 
> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?

Geeks who love to write indestructible, bug-free programs that work.

> Why are you going to the trouble of telling me this,
> without getting paid for it?

Oh, you'd be surprised what payoff I get from this. Not everything
is measurable in dollars. ;-)

> People like to get paid... Hmmmm...
> Can't we agree on: "people like to get something in return" ?

Absolutely! That's why the only way socialism can work is at gunpoint.
(unless, of course, you've got an entirely homogenous population who
are all related to each other - then it's like "family." The US doesn't
have that.)

Thanks!
Rich

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:50:16 -0400, Les Cargill wrote:
> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> 
>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
> 
> Is it? Part of why there are things for Windows
> that are just not there for Linux is because
> Windows appeals to people seeking status.
> 

It appeals to those who don't know any better.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:56:55 -0400, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com>
>>>>>> John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
>>>>>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
>>>>>>> everything everybody needs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consume it.
>>>>> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>>>> With the money taxed from the 1%.
>>>>
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>
>>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>>> productive efforts.
>>>
>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
> 
> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?

Because it ships with sources.

<snip>

/BAH

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
>>
>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>
> Because it ships with sources.

So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing 
productive work.

Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.

-- 
Andrew 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:22:29 -0500, Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>>>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>>>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>>>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
>>>
>>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>>
>> Because it ships with sources.
> 
> So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing 
> productive work.
> 
> Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.

But the ones doing the playing are PAYING THEIR OWN DAMN BILLS!

If I want to write a program and give it away for free, how is that
a bad thing? Everybody benefits - people get to use my program, and
I get the inner satisfaction of knowing that I've done what, to me,
is a "good thing".

You'd make rules against people _voluntarily_ giving away stuff that
they've produced?

THAT's socialism. Or nazism/fascism. Or Microsoftism.

Thanks,
Rich

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:


> If I want to write a program and give it away for free, how is that
> a bad thing?

Because it proves that you slack at your main job. Or pehaps your 
supervisor is not milking you enough so you have a lot of spare time and 
energy for nonsense. Or that you express your non-compliance and 
frustration in the form of creativity (why?). As simple as that.

> Everybody benefits - people get to use my program, and
> I get the inner satisfaction of knowing that I've done what, to me,
> is a "good thing".

Can I see the actual example of your free programming?

> You'd make rules against people _voluntarily_ giving away stuff that
> they've produced?

Nobody gives away the good stuff for free. There is always some reason.

> THAT's socialism. Or nazism/fascism. Or Microsoftism.

Get a life.

:)))))

VLV

Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>>>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>>>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>>>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
>>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>> Because it ships with sources.
> 
> So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing 
> productive work.
> 
> Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.
> 

FWIW ( and I only submit this as a reference point, not
as advocacy ) the person who has written the most about this
is Eric Raymond. His position is that charging economic rent for
information is a doomed concept. I don't think he's come to a
*correct* conclusion ( it's not that simple ) but he has
a point.

--
Les Cargill

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:28:18 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>Because it proves that you slack at your main job.

 Your logic is about as flawed as it gets.

On Aug 8, 2:09=A0pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:22:29 -0500, Andrew wrote:
> > "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> >> Albert van der Horst wrote:
> >>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973...@example.net>,
> >>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian =A0<freedom_...@example.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
> >>>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamental=
ly
> >>>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no p=
ay,
> >>>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. S=
o,
>
> >>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>
> >> Because it ships with sources.
>
> > So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing
> > productive work.
>
> > Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.
>
> But the ones doing the playing are PAYING THEIR OWN DAMN BILLS!
>
> If I want to write a program and give it away for free, how is that
> a bad thing? Everybody benefits - people get to use my program, and
> I get the inner satisfaction of knowing that I've done what, to me,
> is a "good thing".

  Well, it doesn't hurt, but the people with actual post vaccum tube
brains just keeping
  asking the internet wanks how does that help. Since our Electronic
Books,
  Flat Screen Debuggers, Holograms, Multiplexed Fiber Optics Systems,
Cell Phones,
  HDTV, Distributed Processing Software, Digital Terrain Mapping,
Microwave Cooling,
  Thermo-Electric Cooling, Home Broadband, mp3, mpeg, USB, laser disk
libraries,
  Desktop Publishing, on-line banking, on-line publishing, on-line
shopping, gps,
  weather satellites, data fusion, atomic clock wristwatches, cyber
batteries,
  all-in-one printers and light sticks have already proven that
cranking books
  is not only for historians, it's for tomorrow's historians.

  So, that's why we moved on to post ACME Screwthreads, Biodiesel,
  Self-Replicating Machines, Self-Assembling Robots, UAVs, AAVs, Pv
Cell Energy,
  Compact Flourescent Lights and all the other things relativity wanks
and loonies
  don't understand.




>
> You'd make rules against people _voluntarily_ giving away stuff that
> they've produced?
>
> THAT's socialism. Or nazism/fascism. Or Microsoftism.
>
> Thanks,
> Rich- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.08.08.18.07.10.953595@example.net...
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:22:29 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
>>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>>>
>>> Because it ships with sources.
>>
>> So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing
>> productive work.
>>
>> Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.
>
> But the ones doing the playing are PAYING THEIR OWN DAMN BILLS!

I was talking about employees using linux on their employer time.

If they do it on their own time, then you are right, and I could not care 
less.

-- 
Andrew

In article <f6CdnQXu3_BeXuDXnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>
>Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
>
>> If I want to write a program and give it away for free, how is that
>> a bad thing?
>
>Because it proves that you slack at your main job. Or pehaps your 
>supervisor is not milking you enough so you have a lot of spare time and 
>energy for nonsense.

  Or stuff other than nonsense that the employee senses is good for the 
world and is not profitably billable to the employee and that the employee 
senses is not intellectual property of the employer - such as software 
developed off-the-job at home.

>Or that you express your non-compliance and 
>frustration in the form of creativity (why?). As simple as that.

  Non-complaince with what?  I have yet to be presented with any 
prospective employment contract, NDA or other contract outright 
prohibiting me from developing and giving away all software for every 
purpose that software is developed for.

>> Everybody benefits - people get to use my program, and
>> I get the inner satisfaction of knowing that I've done what, to me,
>> is a "good thing".
>
>Can I see the actual example of your free programming?
>
>> You'd make rules against people _voluntarily_ giving away stuff that
>> they've produced?
>
>Nobody gives away the good stuff for free. There is always some reason.

  Sometimes they do so out of their hearts for the good of the world, 
according to their personal religion (which may have low correlation with
most more-citable religions).  Often such people only give some of their 
goodies away for free, while having clients to bill or an employer to be 
paid by for other significant creativity and/or development.

<SNIP stuff past where I hope I said enough on>

 - Don Klipstein (Jr) (don@misty.com)

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 22:01:35 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I was talking about employees using linux on their employer time.
>
>If they do it on their own time, then you are right, and I could not care 
>less.

  Well, the platform or OS certainly matters not when an employee is
doing anything other than work related computing functions and tasks,
like intra-organization correspondence. Work is work, and play is play.
Some of our guys are at work till late in the evening, and get in early,
so they have hour lunches, and workout sessions at the gym, and time for
things like web browsing from their desk.  It is counterproductive for
you to waste time caring about it.  You should set policy and expect it
to be followed.  That policy should not go so far as to ban such
accesses.  As that too is counterproductive, whether you believe it or
not.

  Invariably, such email set-ups end up getting used to pass around new
baby pictures, or tortured kitty pics (just kidding), or some utube or
political cartoon site link (thanks for that one  hehehehe).

  So a certain amount of daily wasted time in a computer-on-every-desktop
corporate environment is actually budgeted into operating costs, and
tracked for accuracy.  Employees that waste too much time get "noticed".

  It is kind of hard to look at several racks full $300k+ of gear each,
and then say that it could have gone together faster without the
computers, or with a mere set of blueprints.

  Especially since all the docs are accessed via the PC.  After the
printed doc gets used to validate the build, they go to the shredder.
In many cases the Display view is sufficient and nothing needs to be
printed.

Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>>> That's because socialism is contrary to human nature. The Socialists
>>>> consistently deny the freeloader effect, which is really fundamentally
>>>> simple - people like to get paid. People don't like to work for no pay,
>>>> especially when the freeloaders get paid and those who work don't. So,
>>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>> Because it ships with sources.
> 
> So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing 
> productive work.
> 
> Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.
> 
You don't know what you're talking about.

/BAH

Andrew wrote:
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.08.08.18.07.10.953595@example.net...
>> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:22:29 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>>>> In article <pan.2009.07.28.21.49.28.973181@example.net>,
>>>>> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian  <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:
>>>>> Then explain why Linux is doing so well?
>>>> Because it ships with sources.
>>> So one can play with sources satisfying his curiosity instead of doing
>>> productive work.
>>>
>>> Sounds exactly like "working" under the socialism.
>> But the ones doing the playing are PAYING THEIR OWN DAMN BILLS!
> 
> I was talking about employees using linux on their employer time.
> 
> If they do it on their own time, then you are right, and I could not care 
> less.
> 
Some of those employees are able to do their work because they have
sources.

You also aren't aware of people who have their own business.

/BAH

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> 
> 
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> 
> 
>> If I want to write a program and give it away for free, how is that
>> a bad thing?
> 
> Because it proves that you slack at your main job. Or pehaps your 
> supervisor is not milking you enough so you have a lot of spare time and 
> energy for nonsense. Or that you express your non-compliance and 
> frustration in the form of creativity (why?). As simple as that.
> 
>> Everybody benefits - people get to use my program, and
>> I get the inner satisfaction of knowing that I've done what, to me,
>> is a "good thing".
> 
> Can I see the actual example of your free programming?
> 
>> You'd make rules against people _voluntarily_ giving away stuff that
>> they've produced?
> 
> Nobody gives away the good stuff for free. There is always some reason.
> 
>> THAT's socialism. Or nazism/fascism. Or Microsoftism.
> 
> Get a life.
> 
> :)))))
> 
> VLV

Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
the sources of the software their businesses depend on?

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
..
> 
> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
> 

Perhaps they do, but just aren't telling. Somewhere deep in the basement 
of a bank, someone thought they could improve the code for computing 
option  pricing, short selling, and loan risk assessments. They made a 
simple error under pressure of deadlines for bonus calculations, and the 
rest is history.

The open source argument presumes the person modifying the code knows 
(a) what they are doing, and (b) knows better than the original authors. 
Sound in principle, ideal even, but maybe not 100% reliable.

So I bounce the question back - do you think it is a good idea for 
people who are not quite as expert as the software authors to hack code 
on which whole businesses depend, nullifying their maintenance contracts 
at the same time?

Richard Dobson

jmfbahciv wrote:
..
> 
> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
> 

Perhaps they do, but just aren't telling. Somewhere deep in the basement 
of a bank, someone thought they could improve the code for computing 
option  pricing, short selling, and loan risk assessments. They made a 
simple error under pressure of deadlines for bonus calculations, and the 
rest is history.

The open source argument presumes the person modifying the code knows 
(a) what they are doing, and (b) knows better than the original authors. 
Sound in principle, ideal even, but maybe not 100% reliable.

So I bounce the question back - do you think it is a good idea for 
people who are not quite as expert as the software authors to hack code 
on which whole businesses depend, nullifying their maintenance contracts 
at the same time?

Richard Dobson

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>
>
> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?

having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.

Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage systems, 
information protection sytems, etc.

Do you have source code for all these business critical applications? Have 
you analyzed it already?

-- 
Andrew

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 11:34:13 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>
>having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>
>Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage systems, 
>information protection sytems, etc.
>
>Do you have source code for all these business critical applications? Have 
>you analyzed it already?

Businesses once did.  That's BAH's point.

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:28:18 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
> 
>> If I want to write a program and give it away for free, how is that
>> a bad thing?
> 
> Because it proves that you slack at your main job.

So fscking what?

How is that any skin off your nose?

Or are you addicted to having Da Gubmint dictate what I may or may not
do of my own free will?

Oh, yeah, that's how the USSR used to work, until the "republic" died of
the disease of socialism.

Why do people continue to refuse to learn?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:28:18 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> 
> Nobody gives away the good stuff for free. There is always some reason.
> 
Yes - the inner satisfaction of having it to give, having the Freedom to
do so, and the possibility of enriching the lives of others, at no cost
to me other than the time, which I've spent doing what I enjoy.

But with a name like yours, you must be Russian. Didn't you learn anything
from the collapse of the Soviet Union?

thanks,
Rich

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:34:13 -0500, Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>
>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
> 
> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
> 
> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage systems, 
> information protection sytems, etc.

If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler? Do you even know
what these terms mean?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:01:35 -0500, Andrew wrote:
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
>>
>> But the ones doing the playing are PAYING THEIR OWN DAMN BILLS!
> 
> I was talking about employees using linux on their employer time.


That's one of those grand assumptions. How an employee uses her time
is entirely between the employer and employee, and none of the
government's, your, or anybody else's business.

Like I say how is that any skin off your nose? From where do you get
the compulsion to dictate how people may or may not behave?

Have you no concept whatever of what Freedom even MEANS?

FreeDOM is not the same as freeBIES.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:32:46 -0700, life imitates life wrote:

> baby pictures, or tortured kitty pics (just kidding),...

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHf96L5NmYY

Admittedly, it went quickly, so doesn't really qualify as torture.

But cats are evil anyway - they're the only animals in the known universe,
besides humans, who torture their prey.

Thanks,
Rich

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
> Andrew wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>
>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>
>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage 
>> systems,
>> information protection sytems, etc.
>
> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?

Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a compiler 
error, not in my software.

> Do you even know what these terms mean?

You now, libertarians are so rare, they should be nicer to each other.

-- 
Andrew 

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2009.08.09.19.43.15.829146@example.net...
> On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:01:35 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in 
>> message
>>>
>>> But the ones doing the playing are PAYING THEIR OWN DAMN BILLS!
>>
>> I was talking about employees using linux on their employer time.
>
> That's one of those grand assumptions. How an employee uses her time
> is entirely between the employer and employee, and none of the
> government's, your, or anybody else's business.
>
> Like I say how is that any skin off your nose? From where do you get
> the compulsion to dictate how people may or may not behave?

Breathe.

What I *say* about such employers, employees, government, your, or anybody 
else is my own business and not anybody else's.

First amendment, you now.

-- 
Andrew 

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
>
> How an employee uses her time
> is entirely between the employer and employee, and none of the
> government's, your, or anybody else's business.

Try to explain it to OSEC, EEOMBD, OALJ, OSBP, 21CW, 
ESA-OFCCP-OLMS-OWCP-WHD,
OASAM, OSHA, ARB, OASP, PBGC, BLS, OCFO, SOL, BRB, OCIA, VETS, CFBCI,
ETA, OCIO, WB, EBSA, ILAB, ODEP, ECAB, MSHA, OIG,...

http://www.dol.gov/dol/organization.htm

-- 
Andrew 

Richard Dobson wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
> .
>>
>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>
> 
> Perhaps they do, but just aren't telling. Somewhere deep in the basement 
> of a bank, someone thought they could improve the code for computing 
> option  pricing, short selling, and loan risk assessments. They made a 
> simple error under pressure of deadlines for bonus calculations, and the 
> rest is history.
> 
> The open source argument presumes the person modifying the code knows 
> (a) what they are doing, and (b) knows better than the original authors. 
> Sound in principle, ideal even, but maybe not 100% reliable.
> 
> So I bounce the question back - do you think it is a good idea for 
> people who are not quite as expert as the software authors to hack code 
> on which whole businesses depend, nullifying their maintenance contracts 
> at the same time?
> 
You are making assumptions that have no bearing on this discussion.
You don't know what you're talking about.

/BAH

Andrew wrote:
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage 
>>> systems,
>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?
> 
> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.

Only for some people.

> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a compiler 
> error, not in my software.


How did you fix the bugs?

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Richard Dobson wrote:
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> .
...
>> So I bounce the question back - do you think it is a good idea for 
>> people who are not quite as expert as the software authors to hack 
>> code on which whole businesses depend, nullifying their maintenance 
>> contracts at the same time?
>>
> You are making assumptions that have no bearing on this discussion.
> You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> /BAH
  Who does? What discussion? There's a glimmer of a topic in there (to 
FOSS or not to FOSS), but it's now nothing but flames. This thread has 
been fact-light (but opinion and assumption-rich) since it started. 
Still hoping it will stop, once folk realise no conclusion can be 
arrived at; nobody's opinion, well-founded or otherwise, will change.

Richard Dobson

On Jul 25, 4:02=C2=A0am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>
> Primitive agriculture, cartages, plows, cattle breeding, slavary.
>
>

Everything classified under the corporate monopoly act and usury law.

You are not allowed to leave your quarters. (A concrete box without
windows)

Talking with other legal persona costs 10 credits per second.

Words will be copyrighted. Like saying the word "Jew=E2=84=A2" gets you 100
million years GITMO=E2=84=A2 gang rape=E2=84=A2.

Most humans will be organ=E2=84=A2 breeding stock. This is considered to be=
 a
honor compared to the usual freedom=E2=84=A2 (torture).

The rich=E2=84=A2 and chosen people=E2=84=A2 entertain=E2=84=A2 themselves =
with vivisection
circuses.

The last time anyone objected to the new peace=E2=84=A2 system was in the y=
ear
2500, this resulted in the burning of all books and skoliars clearly
showing any objection to the new system was a bad idea.

Agriculture is called advanced engineering. All other technology is
deemed 21th century mythology.

They will argue people believed in the weirdest things like micro
processors, they didn't understand freedom=E2=84=A2 (torture) the way we
advanced civilized people do. They even allowed the lesser humans=E2=84=A2 =
to
have their own property=E2=84=A2, imagine the problems that would give!

Confucius =E5=AD=94=E5=AD=90 will be known as Emmanuel Goldstein.

The only thing we would recognize 1000 years from now is war, having
one group of your minions fight against another group of your minions
for pleasure=E2=84=A2 and entertainment=E2=84=A2. Just the fun of seeing ho=
w stupid
they are after lobotomy=E2=84=A2.

Soilentgreen is highly motivational=E2=84=A2 and makes for improved
productivity=E2=84=A2.

-___-
http://news.go-here.nl

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:09:38 +0100, Richard Dobson
<richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>jmfbahciv wrote:
>.
>>=20
>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>=20
>
>Perhaps they do, but just aren't telling. Somewhere deep in the basement=
=20
>of a bank, someone thought they could improve the code for computing=20
>option  pricing, short selling, and loan risk assessments. They made a=20
>simple error under pressure of deadlines for bonus calculations, and the=
=20
>rest is history.
>
>The open source argument presumes the person modifying the code knows=20
>(a) what they are doing, and (b) knows better than the original authors.=
=20
>Sound in principle, ideal even, but maybe not 100% reliable.
>
>So I bounce the question back - do you think it is a good idea for=20
>people who are not quite as expert as the software authors to hack code=20
>on which whole businesses depend, nullifying their maintenance contracts=
=20
>at the same time?
>
>Richard Dobson

=46or workplaces that are so insane as to not have at least some formal
process for new releasing software into production business critical
systems; they deserve the results that they eventually get.

--=20
Transmitted with recycled bits.
Damnly my frank, I don't give a dear
----------

On Jul 26, 6:30=A0pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:52=A0pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
> wrote:
>
> > =A0 Speech to text, and subsequent text to speech is easy
>
> "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." retranslates as "The
> whiskey is agreeable but the meat has gone bad."

I think you humaaan can learn to compensate for this. I find the
translation to be highly philosophical. I'm sure this is your
shortcoming not mine.

2B OR !=3D 2B that is the query

______
http://go-here.nl

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
news:h5p1fn21idn@news2.newsguy.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>> message
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>> systems,
>>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?

So? Do you have sources for all compilers you use?

>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
>
> Only for some people.

I could even guess what kind of people...

>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>> compiler
>> error, not in my software.
>
> How did you fix the bugs?

As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler manufacturer. 
In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of the compiler. I was 
definitely not the only one who noticed it.

-- 
Andrew

On Jul 25, 5:09=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> HardySpicer wrote:
>
> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> Worshipped as the God of Gods. =A0Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
> ants and continue with His picnic. =A0Nah, let's hose down the little
> buggers. =A0Test of faith!
>
> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> braggart
>
> > anti-gravity drives
> > hand-held laser weapons
> > cloaking devices
> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
>
> Hey stooopid - $25.95
>
> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> > Gods?
>
> idiot
>

You say that to everyone, the word looses it's meaning like that.

> There will be no petroleum by 2050.

Nonsense, if there wasn't any hydrogen-carbon the continents wouldn't
float on the ocean.

> =A0No petrochemistry, no polymers,
> no pharma,

bioplastics also work, it is the same thing if you are honest which
you never are.

> no civilization.

It is just silly how you call yourself that.

>=A0The whole of the First World will
> collapseing by 2015 when retired Baby Boomers snap shut their
> infinitely plunderable walkets and scream "GIMME!"

More nonsense, their end will be the beginning of the technological
revolution that will end all civilization. You got the universe
clearly upside down.

> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/obama.htm

Destroy faith in Gentile governments? What protocol was it again?

> Violent oscillation of the Dow-Jones is bad paper being sold for
> proximate value on the upswing, then pumping wallets on the following
> crash. =A0The DJ just went up 1000 points. =A0Uncle Al therefore predicts
> a 1000 point crash within the next three weeks (financial counselors:
> "SELL!") followed by a miraculous rebound during the fourth (financial
> counselors: =A0"BUY!"). =A01929 redux. =A0Two years were required to stea=
l
> everything remaining. =A0The Great Depression started in 1931.

Yeah, steal the nothing that remains. Ohh all this void all for me!
hurray!

Idiot. :-)

_____
http://blog.go-here.nl

On Jul 27, 4:12=A0am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>
>
>
> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 26, 1:16=A0pm, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>
> >> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >> >Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> >> >Here are some thoughts....
>
> >> >anti-gravity drives
> >> >hand-held laser weapons
> >> >cloaking devices
> >> >speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> >> >quantum computers that can reason and think.
> >> >robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> >> >...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> >> >Gods?
>
> >> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs and
> >> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
> >> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
> >> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic movie
> >> stars.
>
> >> Gravity will still be gravity.
>
> >> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>
> >> John
>
> >And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
> >more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort or
> >another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
> >vast army of brown-nosed minions. =A0Meaning that one man, woman and
> >child out of four has to pay for everything.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> everything everybody needs.
>
> So what will the other 99% do?
>
> John

If home CNC machines would be implemented like Tee Vee's and
computards we could all make everything we could imagine.

Copy and paste some designs into your blender client and Darth Vader
is your uncle.

Self replicating rowbots would mass produce the prototype if so
desired.

You thought you could still get a kosher picture of human potential
with everyone watching Billo the clown, Ophrah and Wlrd wrestaling
craphola?

That really says a lot about you. You poor thing!

You actually feel slavery gives purpose to yo existance doesn't you?

That factoid was debunked in the early 1900's.

It was liek ovar 100 years ago.

*hug*

On Jul 28, 2:00=A0am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> >> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
> >>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>
> >>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> >>>>> Here are some thoughts....
> >>>>> anti-gravity drives
> >>>>> hand-held laser weapons
> >>>>> cloaking devices
> >>>>> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> >>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> >>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> >>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> >>>>> Gods?
> >>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs an=
d
> >>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
> >>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoes
> >>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic mov=
ie
> >>>> stars.
>
> >>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>
> >>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>
> >>>> John
> >>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, and
> >>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort o=
r
> >>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
> >>> vast army of brown-nosed minions. =A0Meaning that one man, woman and
> >>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>
> >>> ~ BG
>
> >> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> >> everything everybody needs.
>
> >> So what will the other 99% do?
>
> >> John
>
> >Consume it.
>
> With the money stolen from the 1%.

Teh American dream!

/hah

On Jul 28, 6:28=A0am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:01:06 +1000, Sylvia Else
>
>
>
> <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >krw wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:24 -0400, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> John Larkin wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 18:42:28 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> >>>> <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 26, 1:16 pm, John Larkin
> >>>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:43:48 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>
> >>>>>> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have=
?
> >>>>>>> Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
> >>>>>>> Here are some thoughts....
> >>>>>>> anti-gravity drives
> >>>>>>> hand-held laser weapons
> >>>>>>> cloaking devices
> >>>>>>> speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
> >>>>>>> quantum computers that can reason and think.
> >>>>>>> robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> >>>>>>> ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be li=
ke
> >>>>>>> Gods?
> >>>>>> I think we'll still have houses with beds and chairs and bathtubs =
and
> >>>>>> kitchens pretty much like we have now. We'll live much longer and
> >>>>>> rarely have diseases. We'll still eat ice cream and mashed potatoe=
s
> >>>>>> and drink beer. We'll still have idiotic magazines about idiotic m=
ovie
> >>>>>> stars.
>
> >>>>>> Gravity will still be gravity.
>
> >>>>>> Electronic design will be a lot different.
>
> >>>>>> John
> >>>>> And perhaps by then the White House will have become a synagogue, a=
nd
> >>>>> more than 75% of the global population will have become of one sort=
 or
> >>>>> another public funded, as representing bigger government and their
> >>>>> vast army of brown-nosed minions. =A0Meaning that one man, woman an=
d
> >>>>> child out of four has to pay for everything.
>
> >>>>> ~ BG
> >>>> Productivy will be so huge that 1% of the population could produce
> >>>> everything everybody needs.
>
> >>>> So what will the other 99% do?
>
> >>>> John
>
> >>> Consume it.
>
> >> With the money stolen from the 1%.
>
> >With the money taxed from the 1%.
>
> >Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>
> >Sylvia.
>
> Where would the roads/fire trucks/schools/hospitals/cops come from?

hahaha

Oh my Gawd.... you silly primate.

fire trucks? HAHAHAHAHA

Technically every technology used to deploy explosives is also
suitable for fire fighting. This makes the whole concept of firetrucks
the most barbaric and primitive bullcrap one could ever invest his
believes into.

Schools? HAHAHAHAHA

Howabout raising your own children in stead of investing your believes
into government to do the right thing. It clearly didn't work for you
so why would it work for the coming generations?

cops? HAHAHAHAHA

First sell you a car that goes to fast, then tax you to have
infrastructure to punish you for using the car.

Or, wait you need cops to lock up a million people per year for
knowing a guy who knows a guy who at one stage in his life owned a
shampoo with 1% hemp in it. People like..... the US president.
HAHAHAHAHA and people like the Governator, and that poor Phelps
guy..... HAHAHAHAHA Perhaps you can just grow over your masochistic
fetish and we wouldn't need cops to hunt down lower classes like
swines.

Rowads, hospitals and skools in the sense of buildings you mean right?

Rowbats can build houses and roads just fine.

http://www.contourcrafting.org/

<-- Your love for human error is entirely in error. -->

Here, chek out the Venus project.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D1052234057134838879

Stop crying and join the Zeitgeist movement, make you self useful.

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/

Barbarian..... hahaha....

> I
> suppose you could go live in the wilderness and forage to avoid
> needing all that stuff. You wouldn't need any education, which would
> save a lot of time.

Ah, yes. The good live..... *Gives you credit where earned*


____
http://go-here.nl

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:28:48 -0700, gabydewilde wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:30�pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 7:52�pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
>>
>> > � Speech to text, and subsequent text to speech is easy
>>
>> "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." retranslates as "The
>> whiskey is agreeable but the meat has gone bad."
> 
> I think you humaaan can learn to compensate for this. I find the
> translation to be highly philosophical. I'm sure this is your
> shortcoming not mine.
> 
> 2B OR != 2B that is the query
> 
Problem is, this isn't a query. It's pronounced "2B OR is not equal
to 2B"

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:16:03 -0500, Andrew wrote:
> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>
>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage 
>>> systems,
>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>>
>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?
> 
> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a compiler 
> error, not in my software.
> 
>> Do you even know what these terms mean?
> 
> You now, libertarians are so rare, they should be nicer to each other.

OK, wrong nym. But you still haven't answered my question. If you don't
have source, then what do you need the compiler for?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:28:17 -0500, Andrew wrote:

> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
>>
>> How an employee uses her time
>> is entirely between the employer and employee, and none of the
>> government's, your, or anybody else's business.
> 
> Try to explain it to OSEC, EEOMBD, OALJ, OSBP, 21CW, 
> ESA-OFCCP-OLMS-OWCP-WHD,
> OASAM, OSHA, ARB, OASP, PBGC, BLS, OCFO, SOL, BRB, OCIA, VETS, CFBCI,
> ETA, OCIO, WB, EBSA, ILAB, ODEP, ECAB, MSHA, OIG,...
> 
> http://www.dol.gov/dol/organization.htm

When guns are outlawed, only:

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Administration for Native Americans
Administration on Aging (AoA)
Administration on Developmental Disabilities
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
African Development Foundation
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Agency for International Development
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Agriculture Department (USDA)
Air Force
Alabama Home Page
Alabama State, County, and City Websites
Alaska Home Page
Alaska State, County, and City Websites
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
American Battle Monuments Commission
American Forces Information Service
American Samoa Home Page
AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architect of the Capitol
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
Archives (National Archives and Records Administration)
Arctic Research Commission
Arizona Home Page
Arizona State, County, and City Websites
Arkansas Home Page
Arkansas State, County, and City Websites
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Arms Control and International Security
Army
Army Corps of Engineers
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
Atlantic Fleet Forces Command
Bankruptcy Courts
Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation
Botanic Garden
Broadcasting Board of Governors (Voice of America, Radio|TV Marti and more)
Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (Treasury)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Justice)
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (DHS)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Bureau of Industry and Security (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Bureau of Prisons
Bureau of Public Debt
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
California Home Page
California State, County and City Websites
Capitol Visitor Center
Census Bureau
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration)
Central Command (CENTCOM)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
Chief Acquisition Officers Council
Chief Financial Officers Council
Chief Human Capital Officers Council
Chief Information Officers Council
Cities, Counties, and Towns in the United States
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service)
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq)
Coast Guard
Colorado Home Page
Colorado State, County and City Websites
Commerce Department
Commission of Fine Arts
Commission on Civil Rights
Commission on International Religious Freedom
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Community Planning and Development
Comptroller of the Currency Office
Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US CERT)
Congress
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Congressional Research Service
Connecticut Home Page
Connecticut State, County and City Websites
Constitution Center
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Copyright Office
Corporation for National and Community Service
Corps of Engineers
Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
County and City Governments
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Court of Federal Claims
Court of International Trade
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
Customs and Border Protection
Defense Acquisition University
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Defense Commissary Agency
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
Defense Contract Management Agency
Defense Department (DOD)
Defense Field Activities
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Defense Legal Services Agency
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
Defense Security Service (DSS)
Defense Technical Information Center
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
Delaware Home Page
Delaware River Basin Commission
Delaware State, County and City Websites
Denali Commission
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Defense Inspector General
Department of Education (ED)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Department of State (DOS)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of the Treasury
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Director of National Intelligence
Disability Employment Policy Office
District of Columbia Home Page
Domestic Policy Council
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Economic Adjustment Office
Economic Analysis, Bureau of
Economic Development Administration
Economic Research Service
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (State Department)
Economics & Statistics Administration
Education Department (ED)
Election Assistance Commission
Elementary and Secondary Education
Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration)
Employment and Training Administration (Labor Department)
Employment Standards Administration
Endangered Species Committee
Energy Department (DOE)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Energy Information Administration
Enforcement (Treasury Department)
English Language Acquisition Office
Engraving and Printing, Bureau of
Environmental Management (Energy Department)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
European Command
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Export Administration (now the Bureau of Industry and Security)
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office
Farm Credit Administration
Farm Service Agency
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Consulting Group
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Election Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Executive Boards
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
Federal Financing Bank
Federal Geographic Data Committee
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
Federal Interagency Committee on Education
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
Federal Judicial Center
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve System
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Student Aid
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Federal Transit Administration
Federated States of Micronesia Home Page
Financial Management Service (Treasury Department)
Fish and Wildlife Service
Florida Home Page
Florida State, County and City Websites
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
Foreign Agricultural Service
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
Forest Service
Fossil Energy
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
General Services Administration (GSA)
Geological Survey (USGS)
Georgia Home Page
Georgia State, County and City Websites
Global Affairs (State Department)
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Government National Mortgage Association
Government Printing Office (GPO)
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Guam Home Page
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
Hawaii Home Page
Hawaii State, County and City Websites
Health and Human Services Department (HHS)
Health Resources and Services Administration
Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Holocaust Memorial Museum
Homeland Security Department (DHS)
House Leadership Offices
House of Representatives
House of Representatives Committees
House Office of Inspector General
House Office of the Clerk
House Organizations, Commissions, and Task Forces
House Representatives on the Web
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)
Housing Office (HUD)
Idaho Home Page
Idaho State, County and City Websites
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission
Illinois Home Page
Illinois State, County and City Websites
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services)
Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Indian Arts and Crafts Board
Indian Health Service
Indiana Home Page
Indiana State, County and City Websites
Industrial College of the Armed Forces
Industry and Security, Bureau of (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
Information Resource Management College
Innovation and Improvement Office
Institute of Education Sciences
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Institute of Peace
Inter-American Foundation
Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
Interagency Council on Homelessness
Interior Department
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)
International Labor Affairs, Bureau of
International Trade Administration (ITA)
International Trade Commission
Iowa Home Page
Iowa State, County and City Websites
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
Japan-United States Friendship Commission
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
Joint Fire Science Program
Joint Forces Command
Joint Forces Staff College
Joint Military Intelligence College
Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeal, by Geographic Location and Circuit
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Justice Department
Justice Programs Office (Juvenile Justice, Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women and more)
Justice Statistics, Bureau of
Kansas Home Page
Kansas State, County and City Websites
Kentucky Home Page
Kentucky State, County and City Websites
Labor Department (DOL)
Labor Statistics, Bureau of
Land Management, Bureau of
Lead Hazard Control (Housing and Urban Development Department)
Legal Services Corporation
Library of Congress
Local Governments
Louisiana Home Page
Louisiana State, County and City Websites
Maine Home Page
Maine State, County and City Websites
Marine Corps
Marine Mammal Commission
Maritime Administration
Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department)
Marshals Service
Maryland Home Page
Maryland State, County and City Websites
Massachusetts Home Page
Massachusetts State, County and City Websites
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
Michigan Home Page
Michigan State, County and City Websites
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
Military Postal Service Agency
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Minerals Management Service
Minnesota Home Page
Minnesota State, County and City Websites
Minority Business Development Agency
Mint (Treasury Department)
Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
Mississippi Home Page
Mississippi River Commission
Mississippi State, County and City Websites
Missouri Home Page
Missouri State, County and City Websites
Montana Home Page
Montana State, County and City Websites
Morris K. Udall Foundation: Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Multifamily Housing Office
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National AIDS Policy Office
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
National Capital Planning Commission
National Cemetery Administration (Veterans Affairs Department)
National Constitution Center
National Council on Disability
National Counterintelligence Executive, Office of
National Credit Union Administration
National Defense University
National Drug Intelligence Center
National Economic Council
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Gallery of Art
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Guard
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission
National Institute for Literacy
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Interagency Fire Center
National Labor Relations Board
National Laboratories (Energy Department)
National Marine Fisheries
National Mediation Board
National Nuclear Security Administration
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Park Foundation
National Park Service
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
National Reconnaissance Office
National Science Foundation
National Security Agency (NSA)
National Security Council
National Technical Information Service
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
National Transportation Safety Board
National War College
National Weather Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Navy
Nebraska Home Page
Nebraska State, County and City Websites
Nevada Home Page
Nevada State, County and City Websites
New Hampshire Home Page
New Hampshire State, County and City Websites
New Jersey Home Page
New Jersey State, County and City Websites
New Mexico Home Page
New Mexico State, County and City Websites
New York Home Page
New York State, County and City Websites
North Carolina Home Page
North Carolina State, County and City Websites
North Dakota Home Page
North Dakota State, County and City Websites
Northern Command
Northwest Power Planning Council
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Compliance
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Refugee Resettlement
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Office of Special Counsel
Office of Thrift Supervision
Ohio Home Page
Ohio State, County and City Websites
Oklahoma Home Page
Oklahoma State, County and City Websites
Open World Leadership Center
Oregon Home Page
Oregon State, County and City Websites
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pacific Command
Pardon Attorney Office
Parole Commission (Justice Department)
Patent and Trademark Office
Peace Corps
Pennsylvania Home Page
Pennsylvania State, County and City Websites
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (now the Employee Benefits Security Administration)
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Pentagon Force Protection Agency
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Policy Development and Research (Housing and Urban Development Department)
Political Affairs (State Department)
Postal Regulatory Commission
Postal Service (USPS)
Postsecondary Education
Power Administrations
Presidio Trust
Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office
Program Executive Office, Ships
Public and Indian Housing
Public Debt, Bureau of
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (State Department)
Puerto Rico Home Page
Radio and TV Marti (Espa�ol)
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
Railroad Retirement Board
Reclamation, Bureau of
Refugee Resettlement
Regulatory Information Service Center
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (Transportation Department)
Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department)
Rhode Island Home Page
Rhode Island State, County and City Websites
Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Science Office (Energy Department)
Secret Service
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Selective Service System
Senate
Senate Committees
Senate Leadership
Senators on the Web
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Social Security Advisory Board
South Carolina Home Page
South Carolina State, County and City Websites
South Dakota Home Page
South Dakota State, County and City Websites
Southern Command
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Special Forces Operations Command
State Agencies by Topic
State Department
State Home Pages
State Justice Institute
Stennis Center for Public Service
Strategic Command
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Superfund Basic Research Program
Supreme Court of the United States
Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
Surface Transportation Board
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Tax Court
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
Tennessee Home Page
Tennessee State, County and City Websites
Tennessee Valley Authority
Territories of the United States
Texas Home Page
Texas State, County and City Websites
Transportation Command
Transportation Department (DOT)
Transportation Security Administration
Transportation Statistics, Bureau of
Treasury Department
TRICARE Management
Trustee Program (Justice Department)
U.S. Border Patrol (now Customs and Border Protection)
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. International Trade Commission
U.S. Military Academy, West Point
U.S. Mint
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
U.S. National Central Bureau - Interpol (Justice Department)
U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
U.S. Sentencing Commission
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
U.S. Trade Representative
U.S. Virgin Islands
Unified Combatant Commands (Defense Department)
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Utah Home Page
Utah State, County and City Websites
Vermont Home Page
Vermont State, County or City Websites
Veterans Affairs Department (VA)
Veterans Benefits Administration
Veterans Day National Committee
Veterans Health Administration
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Vietnam Educational Foundation
Virginia Home Page
Virginia State, County and City Websites
Vocational and Adult Education
Voice of America (VOA)
Washington Headquarters Services
Washington Home Page
Washington State, County and City Websites
Weather Service, National
West Point (Army)
West Virginia Home Page
West Virginia State, County and City Websites
White House
White House Commission on Presidential Scholars
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
White House Office of Administration
Wisconsin Home Page
Wisconsin State, County and City Websites
Women's Bureau (Labor Department)
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Wyoming Home Page
Wyoming State, County and City Websites
( http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/ )

and (other) outlaws will have guns.

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 25, 5:09�pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> Worshipped as the God of Gods. �Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
>> ants and continue with His picnic. �Nah, let's hose down the little
>> buggers. �Test of faith!
>>
>> > Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> braggart
>>
>> > anti-gravity drives
>> > hand-held laser weapons
>> > cloaking devices
>> > speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>>
>> Hey stooopid - $25.95
>>
>> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> > Gods?
>>
>> idiot
>>
>
>You say that to everyone, the word looses it's meaning like that.
>
>> There will be no petroleum by 2050.
>
>Nonsense, if there wasn't any hydrogen-carbon the continents wouldn't
>float on the ocean.
>
>> �No petrochemistry, no polymers,
>> no pharma,
>
>bioplastics also work, it is the same thing if you are honest which
>you never are.
>
>> no civilization.
>
>It is just silly how you call yourself that.
>
>>�The whole of the First World will
>> collapseing by 2015 when retired Baby Boomers snap shut their
>> infinitely plunderable walkets and scream "GIMME!"
>
>More nonsense, their end will be the beginning of the technological
>revolution that will end all civilization. You got the universe
>clearly upside down.
>
>> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/obama.htm
>
>Destroy faith in Gentile governments? What protocol was it again?
>
>> Violent oscillation of the Dow-Jones is bad paper being sold for
>> proximate value on the upswing, then pumping wallets on the following
>> crash. �The DJ just went up 1000 points. �Uncle Al therefore predicts
>> a 1000 point crash within the next three weeks (financial counselors:
>> "SELL!") followed by a miraculous rebound during the fourth (financial
>> counselors: �"BUY!"). �1929 redux. �Two years were required to steal
>> everything remaining. �The Great Depression started in 1931.
>
>Yeah, steal the nothing that remains. Ohh all this void all for me!
>hurray!
>
>Idiot. :-)

Speaking of idiots, do you ever have anything coherent to say?
 

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nonsense, if there wasn't any hydrogen-carbon the continents wouldn't
>float on the ocean.

  The continents do NOT "float on the oceans", you retarded twit!

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>If home CNC machines would be implemented like Tee Vee's and
>computards we could all make everything we could imagine.

  Jeez. Talk about a retard.  You take the cake, boy.

  There are home woodcutters that carve up wood by computer, and you
don't see folks running out to buy one all over the place.

 Besides that, even if you had such a tool, it would also require that
you have a brain, and you clearly do not qualify.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>Copy and paste some designs into your blender client and Darth Vader
>is your uncle.
>
>Self replicating rowbots would mass produce the prototype if so
>desired.

  You're a clueless retard.  You are one of the dopes in the world that
should NOT have access to TV.  You should never have seen any Lexx or
Farscape episodes.

  "rowbots"? If you were any more retarded, I'd swear you were born with
it, but it is obvious that you are doing it by choice.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>It was liek ovar 100 years ago.
>
>*hug*

  You new age, gang boy retard mentality twits never cease to amaze me.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>Teh American dream!


  Go back to the kook group, ya fuckin' retard.

On Aug 11, 1:04=A0am, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:28:48 -0700, gabydewilde wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 6:30=A0pm, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jul 25, 7:52=A0pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Or=
g>
>
> >> > =A0 Speech to text, and subsequent text to speech is easy
>
> >> "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." retranslates as "The
> >> whiskey is agreeable but the meat has gone bad."
>
> > I think you humaaan can learn to compensate for this. I find the
> > translation to be highly philosophical. I'm sure this is your
> > shortcoming not mine.
>
> > 2B OR !=3D 2B that is the query
>
> Problem is, this isn't a query. It's pronounced "2B OR is not equal
> to 2B"
>
> Hope This Helps!
> Rich

See? You compensated, good boy.

You should have more faith in yourself like I have.

In fact you should really aim to outperform the expectations of
others.

Who knows, we might one day be able to have a conservation without
violating the laws of logic.

humaaan confersation might just grow beyond spewing error messages.

On Aug 11, 1:38=A0am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
>
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 25, 5:09=A0pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> HardySpicer wrote:
>
> >> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
> >> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>
> >> Worshipped as the God of Gods. =A0Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
> >> ants and continue with His picnic. =A0Nah, let's hose down the little
> >> buggers. =A0Test of faith!
>
> >> > Here are some thoughts....
>
> >> braggart
>
> >> > anti-gravity drives
> >> > hand-held laser weapons
> >> > cloaking devices
> >> > speech to speech =A0translators - hand held for any language.
>
> >> Hey stooopid - $25.95
>
> >> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
> >> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
> >> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
> >> > Gods?
>
> >> idiot
>
> >You say that to everyone, the word looses it's meaning like that.
>
> >> There will be no petroleum by 2050.
>
> >Nonsense, if there wasn't any hydrogen-carbon the continents wouldn't
> >float on the ocean.
>
> >> =A0No petrochemistry, no polymers,
> >> no pharma,
>
> >bioplastics also work, it is the same thing if you are honest which
> >you never are.
>
> >> no civilization.
>
> >It is just silly how you call yourself that.
>
> >>=A0The whole of the First World will
> >> collapseing by 2015 when retired Baby Boomers snap shut their
> >> infinitely plunderable walkets and scream "GIMME!"
>
> >More nonsense, their end will be the beginning of the technological
> >revolution that will end all civilization. You got the universe
> >clearly upside down.
>
> >>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/obama.htm
>
> >Destroy faith in Gentile governments? What protocol was it again?
>
> >> Violent oscillation of the Dow-Jones is bad paper being sold for
> >> proximate value on the upswing, then pumping wallets on the following
> >> crash. =A0The DJ just went up 1000 points. =A0Uncle Al therefore predi=
cts
> >> a 1000 point crash within the next three weeks (financial counselors:
> >> "SELL!") followed by a miraculous rebound during the fourth (financial
> >> counselors: =A0"BUY!"). =A01929 redux. =A0Two years were required to s=
teal
> >> everything remaining. =A0The Great Depression started in 1931.
>
> >Yeah, steal the nothing that remains. Ohh all this void all for me!
> >hurray!
>
> >Idiot. :-)
>
> Speaking of idiots, do you ever have anything coherent to say?

I tried that lots of times, it didn't work out for me, it was a long
time ago.

I love how you talk about the person in stead of confessing you didn't
really understand the posting.

I bet like that you can get away from the point in most cases.

Good luck with that chap.

____
http://blog.go-here.nl

On Aug 11, 2:37=A0am, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Nonsense, if there wasn't any hydrogen-carbon the continents wouldn't
> >float on the ocean.
>
> =A0 The continents do NOT "float on the oceans", you retarded twit!

Ah, full denial. American I presume?

If yer pumpin it up from below sea level then the shit is floating.
You may ignorantly question "how much" but not "IF"

There are gigantic oil reserves in the US. I suppose you are going to
preach the Allegory about the sea level rising now?

Oh, look we are pumping up the oil and the houses are sinking into the
ground! This must be global war-ming. Yeah, that haz to be it. Pass
the cool aid!

Look how America II and IIV are naturally growing here.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/are-there-reall.html

All we need is some mud on top and lots of SUV.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:01:40 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>humaaan confersation 


  Gang boy retards always get zero credence here.

  You are one such retard.

  Go gab wildly somewhere else.

On Aug 11, 2:44=A0am, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It was liek ovar 100 years ago.
>
> >*hug*
>
> =A0 You new age, gang boy retard mentality twits never cease to amaze me.

*hug*

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>> � The continents do NOT "float on the oceans", you retarded twit!
>
>Ah, full denial. American I presume?

  The word for today is MANTLE.

 I do not, however, expect a total retard like you to get it.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>If yer pumpin it up from below sea level then the shit is floating.
>You may ignorantly question "how much" but not "IF"

  You're an idiot, and you have pumped up your brain one time too often
on whatever it is that retards like you jack your brains with.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>There are gigantic oil reserves in the US. I suppose you are going to
>preach the Allegory about the sea level rising now?

  You're an idiot, and your retarded rantings do not even inter-relate.

>Oh, look we are pumping up the oil and the houses are sinking into the
>ground!

  You're an idiot.

> This must be global war-ming. Yeah, that haz to be it. Pass
>the cool aid!

 The brand name is Kool Aid, you retarded little piece of shit.

>Look how America II and IIV are naturally growing here.

  IIV is NOT a proper Roman Numeral, dumbfuck.

  Got any more retarded baby bullshit?

On Aug 11, 2:41=A0am, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:48:41 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If home CNC machines would be implemented like Tee Vee's and
> >computards we could all make everything we could imagine.
>
> =A0 Jeez. Talk about a retard. =A0You take the cake, boy.

What was that a compliment?

You sure rewire easy.

> =A0 There are home woodcutters that carve up wood by computer, and you
> don't see folks running out to buy one all over the place.

This was fully explianed to you whree I wrote:

" You thought you could still get a kosher picture of human potential
with everyone watching Billo the clown, Ophrah and Wlrd wrestaling
craphola? "

> =A0Besides that, even if you had such a tool, it would also require that
> you have a brain, and you clearly do not qualify.

The application of folk pschatry over teh internets.

Welcome to the digital age!

But srly, if you look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DozlwcQT-U20

Then it has to be obvious that all the world is waiting for is for the
old farts to write the software and build the homage CNC mass
production line.

You didn't think those Chinese children was going to make your
Macdonalds toys for ever did you? Well?

___
http://blog.go-here.nl

On Aug 11, 4:41=A0am, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> =A0 The continents do NOT "float on the oceans", you retarded twit!
>
> >Ah, full denial. American I presume?
>
> =A0 The word for today is MANTLE.
>
> =A0I do not, however, expect a total retard like you to get it.

Next tihng you will be preaching subducktion here.

/hah

____
http://blog.go-here.nl

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 11, 1:38�am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>>
>>
>>
>> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jul 25, 5:09�pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> >> HardySpicer wrote:
>>
>> >> > If mankind is still around...what sort of technology will we have?
>> >> > Remember, Uncle-Al will be long gone by then.
>>
>> >> Worshipped as the God of Gods. �Uncle Al will, in turn, ignore the
>> >> ants and continue with His picnic. �Nah, let's hose down the little
>> >> buggers. �Test of faith!
>>
>> >> > Here are some thoughts....
>>
>> >> braggart
>>
>> >> > anti-gravity drives
>> >> > hand-held laser weapons
>> >> > cloaking devices
>> >> > speech to speech �translators - hand held for any language.
>>
>> >> Hey stooopid - $25.95
>>
>> >> > quantum computers that can reason and think.
>> >> > robots that can be mistaken for humans.
>> >> > ...any more? What about after 1 million years - will humans be like
>> >> > Gods?
>>
>> >> idiot
>>
>> >You say that to everyone, the word looses it's meaning like that.
>>
>> >> There will be no petroleum by 2050.
>>
>> >Nonsense, if there wasn't any hydrogen-carbon the continents wouldn't
>> >float on the ocean.
>>
>> >> �No petrochemistry, no polymers,
>> >> no pharma,
>>
>> >bioplastics also work, it is the same thing if you are honest which
>> >you never are.
>>
>> >> no civilization.
>>
>> >It is just silly how you call yourself that.
>>
>> >>�The whole of the First World will
>> >> collapseing by 2015 when retired Baby Boomers snap shut their
>> >> infinitely plunderable walkets and scream "GIMME!"
>>
>> >More nonsense, their end will be the beginning of the technological
>> >revolution that will end all civilization. You got the universe
>> >clearly upside down.
>>
>> >>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/obama.htm
>>
>> >Destroy faith in Gentile governments? What protocol was it again?
>>
>> >> Violent oscillation of the Dow-Jones is bad paper being sold for
>> >> proximate value on the upswing, then pumping wallets on the following
>> >> crash. �The DJ just went up 1000 points. �Uncle Al therefore predicts
>> >> a 1000 point crash within the next three weeks (financial counselors:
>> >> "SELL!") followed by a miraculous rebound during the fourth (financial
>> >> counselors: �"BUY!"). �1929 redux. �Two years were required to steal
>> >> everything remaining. �The Great Depression started in 1931.
>>
>> >Yeah, steal the nothing that remains. Ohh all this void all for me!
>> >hurray!
>>
>> >Idiot. :-)
>>
>> Speaking of idiots, do you ever have anything coherent to say?
>
>I tried that lots of times, it didn't work out for me, it was a long
>time ago.

I understand.  You have problems with reality.

>I love how you talk about the person in stead of confessing you didn't
>really understand the posting.

There is nothing to understand in any of your postings.  <shrug>

>I bet like that you can get away from the point in most cases.

You have no point, other than between your shoulders.

>Good luck with that chap.

I don't rely on luck. 
>____
>http://blog.go-here.nl

Ah, another dumb Europeon.

On Aug 11, 4:43=A0am, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If yer pumpin it up from below sea level then the shit is floating.
> >You may ignorantly question "how much" but not "IF"
>
> =A0 You're an idiot, and you have pumped up your brain one time too often
> on whatever it is that retards like you jack your brains with.

This is for me to know and for you to not-know.

They shure pumped those ELF waves into the agressive zone with you
btw.

You live near a wifi towhar?

It seems an appropriate subtopic for this x-posted suject.

Try breathing exercises.

____
http://blog.go-here.nl

On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:49:59 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<freedom_guy@example.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:32:46 -0700, life imitates life wrote:
>
>> baby pictures, or tortured kitty pics (just kidding),...
>
>Like this?
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DhHf96L5NmYY
>
>Admittedly, it went quickly, so doesn't really qualify as torture.
>
>But cats are evil anyway - they're the only animals in the known =
universe,
>besides humans, who torture their prey.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich

Your universe must be pretty small.  There is more to it than this
silly little planet.  And don't bet on cats being the only others,
what about spiders?

On Aug 11, 5:14=A0am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> > I love how you talk about the person
> > in stead of confessing you didn't
> > really understand the posting.
> >
> > I bet like that you can get away
> > from the point in most cases.
>
> You have no point, other than between your shoulders.

you are doing it again. ha-ha

_____
http://blog.go-here.nl

Andrew wrote:
> "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gmu175h1vherhtc0aoa2tnbvv9fg3a400f@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:30:58 -0500, "Andrew" <andyvbel@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> news:h4ml27312uh@news2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Not that the distinction between theft and taxation was ever that great.
>>>>
>>> Which will deplete the resources to produce more.  That destroys all
>>> productive efforts.
>> Resources available even on Earth alone are for all practical purposes
>> infinite.
> 
>> Really??
> 
> Really.

Moron. You set a *very* low value on infinity.

100 years is nothing like infinity. Even if you count time in seconds it 
doesn't overflow a 32bit unsigned register.

> 
>> The surface of the earth in not infinite.  The volume of the
>> earth is not infinite.  The total daily solar flux is not infinite.
>> QED the resources of this planet are NOT infinite.
> 
> In mathematical sense - they are not. In practical sense - they are.
> Amount of resources available is not the limiting factor for the humans.

Resource availability is already is a factor in many places for food 
production, fresh potable water and living space. You are aware that the 
LA area is using much water faster than it can be replenished?

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/10/local/me-water-restrictions10

And availability of fresh water is virtually infinite over the long term 
because it refluxes around the atmosphere. But the sustainable usage 
rate is finite use it up too fast and it will run dry.

Americans seem determined to inflict maximum environmental damage for 
short term commercial gain. Profligate waste of resources for a quick 
dirty profit.

In the UK during droughts which are rare in our wet climate there is 
always a complete hose pipe ban. Only grey water can be used on gardens 
during a drought. Australia is even more sophisticated with grey water 
irrigation systems as a part of the city/town infrastructure.
> 
>> Take a hard look at known coal and oil
>> reserves and current annual use rates.
> 
> Oil - 50+ years
> Coal - 140+ years.
> Nuclear fission - 300+ years
> 
>> How long until your kids run out?
> 
> I would like for my kids to live 150+ years, but I seriously doubt it will 
> happen.
> So no, my kids will not run out of oil or coal, or anything else for that 
> matter.

Oil will just go up massively in price in the next few decades. We are 
on the cusp of peak oil production now, and the biggest reserves remain 
in unstable countries. When house of Saud falls prey to its indigenous 
extremist Wahhabis we will be in trouble again. Ask yourself this - how 
many of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis and how many from Saudi Arabia?

Coal we have a fair amount of and horrible oil shales can be exploited 
if the price of oil goes high enough. But US refineries would need a 
fair bit of tweaking to take the more difficult to refine sour crudes.

US actually has to import finished gasoline today because of its lack of 
refining capacity. Cheap gas is no longer an American birth right going 
forwards.
> 
> ===
> In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city 
> would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator 
> of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to 
> Manhattan's third-story windows. A public health and sanitation crisis of 
> almost unimaginable dimensions loomed.
> ===


And for the past 50 years nuclear electricity "too cheap to meter" has 
been only ten years away. But we are now pretty much out of new sources 
of energy so you cannot play the get out of jail free card again.

It is also worth noting that the mean traffic speed in London is the 
same now as it was in the 1890 namely 12mph. These days limited by 
congestion of far too many vehicles rather than their top speed. Aston 
Martins look particularly silly moving at less than walking pace.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 11, 4:41�am, The Great Attractor
><Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>>
>> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> � The continents do NOT "float on the oceans", you retarded twit!
>>
>> >Ah, full denial. American I presume?
>>
>> � The word for today is MANTLE.
>>
>> �I do not, however, expect a total retard like you to get it.
>
>Next tihng you will be preaching subducktion here.
>

  Go back to the kook group, you retarded twit.

Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> news:h5p1fn21idn@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>>> message
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>>> systems,
>>>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>>>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?
> 
> So? Do you have sources for all compilers you use?

Yes, I did. I had sources to all microcodes, all the OS code and every
piece of software, the company I worked for, shipped.  I do know what
I'm talking about.

> 
>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
>> Only for some people.
> 
> I could even guess what kind of people...
> 
>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>> compiler
>>> error, not in my software.
>> How did you fix the bugs?
> 
> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler manufacturer. 
> In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of the compiler. I was 
> definitely not the only one who noticed it.
> 
If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
without sources?  You would not have fixed it but would have had
to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
sources.

/BAH

Rich Grise wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:16:03 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in message
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage 
>>>> systems,
>>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?
>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a compiler 
>> error, not in my software.
>>
>>> Do you even know what these terms mean?
>> You now, libertarians are so rare, they should be nicer to each other.
> 
> OK, wrong nym. But you still haven't answered my question. If you don't
> have source, then what do you need the compiler for?
> 
I don't think he understands the question.

/BAH

On Aug 11, 1:11=A0pm, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:11:25 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
>
>
> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 11, 4:41=A0am, The Great Attractor
> ><Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:40:03 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>
> >> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> =A0 The continents do NOT "float on the oceans", you retarded twit!
>
> >> >Ah, full denial. American I presume?
>
> >> =A0 The word for today is MANTLE.
>
> >> =A0I do not, however, expect a total retard like you to get it.
>
> >Next tihng you will be preaching subducktion here.
>
> =A0 Go back to the kook group, you retarded twit.

Tell me what to do please.

/hah

_____
http://blog.go-here.nl

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> news:h5p1fn21idn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>>>>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?
>>
>> So? Do you have sources for all compilers you use?
> 
> Yes, I did. I had sources to all microcodes, all the OS code and every
> piece of software, the company I worked for, shipped.  I do know what
> I'm talking about.
> 
>>
>>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
>>> Only for some people.
>>
>> I could even guess what kind of people...
>>
>>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>>> compiler
>>>> error, not in my software.
>>> How did you fix the bugs?
>>
>> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler 
>> manufacturer. In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of 
>> the compiler. I was definitely not the only one who noticed it.
>>
> If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
> without sources?  You would not have fixed it but would have had
> to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
> sources.
> 
> /BAH


This... doesn't really matter, anyway:

1) You really should be at CMMI level 2 now. Really. It's
the moral equivalent of being housebroken.

2) CMMI level 2 requires fixing the development tools
at a patch level prior to really a unit testing
phase in a given release. Very early on.

3) A release which involves a change in the dev suite should
*really* require the maximum level of testing possible for
the release - it should be at a major release level.

Obviously, circumstances can intervene, but you
really need high level of permission to deviate
from this.

--
Les Cargill

"Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.08.10.23.04.15.765584@example.net...
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:16:03 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>> message
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>>
>>>> having or not having source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>> systems,
>>>> information protection systems, etc.

And most of it without source code, obviously.

> If you don't have source, then what do you need the compiler for?

To compile source code for the software I developed. Could there be any 
other use?
I do not need sources of the compiler itself to successfully use it.

I do not get paid to solve compiler's problems, I get paid to solve 
customer's problems

-- 
Andrew

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
news:h5rm0r21p7v@news1.newsguy.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> news:h5p1fn21idn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message

>>>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?

>>>>>> having or not having source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>> information protection systems, etc.

>>
>> So? Do you have sources for all compilers you use?
>
> Yes, I did. I had sources to all microcodes, all the OS code and every
> piece of software, the company I worked for, shipped.  I do know what
> I'm talking about.

Read again. Did you have source code for the compilers, OSes, backup 
solutions, data storage systems, etc?

Not the ones you company developed, but the ones your company used during 
the development.

>>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
>>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>>> compiler error, not in my software.
>>> How did you fix the bugs?
>>
>> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler
>> manufacturer.
>> In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of the compiler. I
>> was definitely not the only one who noticed it.

> If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
> without sources?

About 10 lines above there is a statement. "Workaround in my software."

I simplify it for you.

There are different ways to implement the same functionality in the software 
using the same compiler.
Some of them do not work because of the bug in the compiler. Some do work 
because the particular compiler bug does not affect them.

Use one that works.

You know, it's not that hard to do when you finally found the root cause.

> You would not have fixed it but would have had
> to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
> sources.

Weird logic if you can call it "logic" at all.

Workarounds were implemented using the same compiler.
Fixed compiler version was a bonus.

-- 
Andrew

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:41:00 -0700, JosephKK wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:49:59 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>>On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:32:46 -0700, life imitates life wrote:
>>
>>> baby pictures, or tortured kitty pics (just kidding),...
>>
>>Like this?
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHf96L5NmYY
>>
>>Admittedly, it went quickly, so doesn't really qualify as torture.
>>
>>But cats are evil anyway - they're the only animals in the known universe,
>>besides humans, who torture their prey.
> 
> Your universe must be pretty small.  There is more to it than this
> silly little planet. 

Well, I said "known". Do you know of life on other planets? ;-)

> And don't bet on cats being the only others,
> what about spiders?

They eat insects, and who cares about them? Besides, how do you know their
venom doesn't anesthetize the insects?

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:01:26 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 11, 5:14�am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>>
>> > I love how you talk about the person
>> > in stead of confessing you didn't
>> > really understand the posting.
>> >
>> > I bet like that you can get away
>> > from the point in most cases.
>>
>> You have no point, other than between your shoulders.
>
>you are doing it again. ha-ha

Pointing out another Europeon pin-head?  Yep!

Les Cargill wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>> news:h5p1fn21idn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>>>>> having or not ahving source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>> information protection sytems, etc.
>>>>>> If you don't have source, what's the use of a compiler?
>>>
>>> So? Do you have sources for all compilers you use?
>>
>> Yes, I did. I had sources to all microcodes, all the OS code and every
>> piece of software, the company I worked for, shipped.  I do know what
>> I'm talking about.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to 
>>>>> detect.
>>>> Only for some people.
>>>
>>> I could even guess what kind of people...
>>>
>>>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>>>> compiler
>>>>> error, not in my software.
>>>> How did you fix the bugs?
>>>
>>> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler 
>>> manufacturer. In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of 
>>> the compiler. I was definitely not the only one who noticed it.
>>>
>> If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
>> without sources?  You would not have fixed it but would have had
>> to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
>> sources.
>>
>> /BAH
> 
> 
> This... doesn't really matter, anyway:
> 
> 1) You really should be at CMMI level 2 now. Really. It's
> the moral equivalent of being housebroken.
> 
> 2) CMMI level 2 requires fixing the development tools
> at a patch level prior to really a unit testing
> phase in a given release. Very early on.
> 
> 3) A release which involves a change in the dev suite should
> *really* require the maximum level of testing possible for
> the release - it should be at a major release level.
> 
> Obviously, circumstances can intervene, but you
> really need high level of permission to deviate
> from this.
> 
Nowadays, the patching tools all suck.  We also were able
to patch software, even the kernal while it was running.
And we did it using machine code, not some wimpy HLL
interfacing.

/BAH

Andrew wrote:
> "Rich Grise" <richgrise@example.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.08.10.23.04.15.765584@example.net...
>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:16:03 -0500, Andrew wrote:
>>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>>> message
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
>>>>> having or not having source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>>> systems,
>>>>> information protection systems, etc.
> 
> And most of it without source code, obviously.
> 
>> If you don't have source, then what do you need the compiler for?
> 
> To compile source code for the software I developed. Could there be any 
> other use?
> I do not need sources of the compiler itself to successfully use it.
> 
> I do not get paid to solve compiler's problems, I get paid to solve 
> customer's problems
> 
You have already stated that you had to deal with bugs in the compiler
which makes it your problem.  If you had the sources to the compiler,
you could fix the bugs, set it in hard bits, recompile the compiler
and never have to deal with the same bug again.

/BAH

Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> news:h5rm0r21p7v@news1.newsguy.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>>> news:h5p1fn21idn@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>> "Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <freedom_guy@example.net> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> 
>>>>>>>> Do you really think it is a good thing for companies not to have
>>>>>>>> the sources of the software their businesses depend on?
> 
>>>>>>> having or not having source code is usually irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Business depends on compilers, OSes, backup solutions, data storage
>>>>>>> systems,
>>>>>>> information protection systems, etc.
> 
>>> So? Do you have sources for all compilers you use?
>> Yes, I did. I had sources to all microcodes, all the OS code and every
>> piece of software, the company I worked for, shipped.  I do know what
>> I'm talking about.
> 
> Read again. Did you have source code for the compilers, OSes, backup 
> solutions, data storage systems, etc?

I answered the question.  Yes.

> 
> Not the ones you company developed, but the ones your company used during 
> the development.

Yes.  I even knew how to cold start a computer with only a boot tape
(which I built) and a set of sources.  We used what we shipped and
we shipped what we used.

> 
>>>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to detect.
>>>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>>>> compiler error, not in my software.
>>>> How did you fix the bugs?
>>> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler
>>> manufacturer.
>>> In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of the compiler. I
>>> was definitely not the only one who noticed it.
> 
>> If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
>> without sources?
> 
> About 10 lines above there is a statement. "Workaround in my software."

So did you have to copy that code everywhere you might encounter the 
bug?  Editing the compiler sources, rebuilding the compiler, would
have guaranteed that you wouldn't have that particular problem again.

> 
> I simplify it for you.
> 
> There are different ways to implement the same functionality in the software 
> using the same compiler.
> Some of them do not work because of the bug in the compiler. Some do work 
> because the particular compiler bug does not affect them.
> 
> Use one that works.
> 
> You know, it's not that hard to do when you finally found the root cause.

And some bugs don't have a workaround.

> 
>> You would not have fixed it but would have had
>> to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
>> sources.
> 
> Weird logic if you can call it "logic" at all.
> 
> Workarounds were implemented using the same compiler.
> Fixed compiler version was a bonus.
> 


Did you maintain a library of all your workaround code?  Did you
maintain a testbed to determine if the software updates for that
compiler still had the problems?  Now you're talking about
man-year/year to keep track of the mess.

/BAH

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:32:49 -0500, krw wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:01:26 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>>On Aug 11, 5:14�am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:04:23 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde
>>>
>>> > I love how you talk about the person
>>> > in stead of confessing you didn't
>>> > really understand the posting.
>>> >
>>> > I bet like that you can get away
>>> > from the point in most cases.
>>>
>>> You have no point, other than between your shoulders.
>>
>>you are doing it again. ha-ha
> 
> Pointing out another Europeon pin-head?  Yep!

In other words, having no cogent rebuttal, you cast insults at
your enemy?

Shame on you.

jmfbahciv wrote:
> You have already stated that you had to deal with bugs in the compiler
> which makes it your problem.  If you had the sources to the compiler,
> you could fix the bugs, set it in hard bits, recompile the compiler
> and never have to deal with the same bug again.

You could, but you would need some compiler expertise in house, or buy
the expertise from external consultants. The compilers are such complex
beasts that it's not easy to fix them without special knowledge of the
compiler internals. It's easier to just work around the bug, or get the
original vendor to fix the bug.

My experience is that for commercial compilers (VHDL, Verilog etc.) the
bugs have been fixed quite quickly when there is a reasonable sized
testcase to point out the bug. Or during the conversations the vendor
tells that my understanding of the standard is not correct ;)

--Kim

Kim Enkovaara wrote:

> jmfbahciv wrote:
> 
>> You have already stated that you had to deal with bugs in the compiler
>> which makes it your problem.  If you had the sources to the compiler,
>> you could fix the bugs, set it in hard bits, recompile the compiler
>> and never have to deal with the same bug again.
> 
> 
> You could, but you would need some compiler expertise in house, or buy
> the expertise from external consultants. The compilers are such complex
> beasts that it's not easy to fix them without special knowledge of the
> compiler internals. It's easier to just work around the bug, or get the
> original vendor to fix the bug.

Yes. The job is not about fixing compilers, but about getting the 
project done.

> My experience is that for commercial compilers (VHDL, Verilog etc.) the
> bugs have been fixed quite quickly when there is a reasonable sized
> testcase to point out the bug. Or during the conversations the vendor
> tells that my understanding of the standard is not correct ;)

In the later case, it helps to compare the behavior of the compiler to 
some well known compiler, such as MS Visual C++. Not that MSVC is such 
an etalon, however this gives the arrogant vendor some doubts.



Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Kim Enkovaara wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> You have already stated that you had to deal with bugs in the compiler
>> which makes it your problem.  If you had the sources to the compiler,
>> you could fix the bugs, set it in hard bits, recompile the compiler
>> and never have to deal with the same bug again.
> 
> You could, but you would need some compiler expertise in house, or buy
> the expertise from external consultants. The compilers are such complex
> beasts that it's not easy to fix them without special knowledge of the
> compiler internals. 

Are they really?  Gee, it's only software ;-).

>It's easier to just work around the bug, or get the
> original vendor to fix the bug.
>

Sure it's easier but it can also be a RPITA if you have to maintain
a test bed or library for workarounds.

> My experience is that for commercial compilers (VHDL, Verilog etc.) the
> bugs have been fixed quite quickly when there is a reasonable sized
> testcase to point out the bug. Or during the conversations the vendor
> tells that my understanding of the standard is not correct ;)

Yep, and then there is that.  :-)

/BAH

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> 
> 
> Kim Enkovaara wrote:
> 
>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>
>>> You have already stated that you had to deal with bugs in the compiler
>>> which makes it your problem.  If you had the sources to the compiler,
>>> you could fix the bugs, set it in hard bits, recompile the compiler
>>> and never have to deal with the same bug again.
>>
>>
>> You could, but you would need some compiler expertise in house, or buy
>> the expertise from external consultants. The compilers are such complex
>> beasts that it's not easy to fix them without special knowledge of the
>> compiler internals. It's easier to just work around the bug, or get the
>> original vendor to fix the bug.
> 
> Yes. The job is not about fixing compilers, but about getting the 
> project done.

Which, in the described case, had to deal with fixing a compiler bug.
You really don't know how to work, do you?

> 
>> My experience is that for commercial compilers (VHDL, Verilog etc.) the
>> bugs have been fixed quite quickly when there is a reasonable sized
>> testcase to point out the bug. Or during the conversations the vendor
>> tells that my understanding of the standard is not correct ;)
> 
> In the later case, it helps to compare the behavior of the compiler to 
> some well known compiler, such as MS Visual C++. Not that MSVC is such 
> an etalon, however this gives the arrogant vendor some doubts.

Oh, my dear.  That is not a good way to do things.

/BAH

jmfbahciv wrote:
> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>> In the later case, it helps to compare the behavior of the compiler to 
>> some well known compiler, such as MS Visual C++. Not that MSVC is such 
>> an etalon, however this gives the arrogant vendor some doubts.
> 
> Oh, my dear.  That is not a good way to do things.

There are sometimes many ways to interpret the language standards. If
many compilers do the transformation in one way, and one vendor is
different, it is easier to persuade that one vendor to fix their
behaviour to match the others. Or at least that opens interesting
discussion about the standard and how to interpret it.

--Kim

Kim Enkovaara wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>>> In the later case, it helps to compare the behavior of the compiler 
>>> to some well known compiler, such as MS Visual C++. Not that MSVC is 
>>> such an etalon, however this gives the arrogant vendor some doubts.
>>
>> Oh, my dear.  That is not a good way to do things.
> 
> There are sometimes many ways to interpret the language standards. 

Yep.  When the aspect is rather recent, all the software will take
a while to adapt.  If this change breaks existing code, then there
will also have to be the accepted method plus the "old" method.

>If
> many compilers do the transformation in one way, and one vendor is
> different, it is easier to persuade that one vendor to fix their
> behaviour to match the others.

If the vendor has had its code out in the field for some time,
the software will have to provide the "old" way, too.

> Or at least that opens interesting
> discussion about the standard and how to interpret it.
>

And then there are the underlying differences in hardware.
To tweak or not to tweak; that is the questionable bit.

/BAH

"jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
> Andrew wrote:
>> Read again. Did you have source code for the compilers, OSes, backup
>> solutions, data storage systems, etc?
>
> I answered the question.  Yes.

Impressive, but hard to believe. Or there was a limited amount of software.

>> Not the ones you company developed, but the ones your company used during
>> the development.
>
> Yes.  I even knew how to cold start a computer with only a boot tape
> (which I built) and a set of sources.  We used what we shipped and
> we shipped what we used.

I see. It was long age when software was written by the great programmers 
using hex numbers.

It was a great time, but it passed for the better or for worse.

>>>>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to
>>>>>> detect.
>>>>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>>>>> compiler error, not in my software.
>>>>> How did you fix the bugs?
>>>> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler
>>>> manufacturer.
>>>> In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of the compiler. I
>>>> was definitely not the only one who noticed it.
>>
>>> If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
>>> without sources?
>>
>> About 10 lines above there is a statement. "Workaround in my software."
>
> So did you have to copy that code everywhere you might encounter the
> bug?

Yes. workaround was not that complicated.

> Editing the compiler sources, rebuilding the compiler, would
> have guaranteed that you wouldn't have that particular problem again.

And retest compiler modification to make sure you did not break something 
else.

I am not in the compiler design business and I am sure people designing 
compilers can do it better.

>>> You would not have fixed it but would have had
>>> to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
>>> sources.
>>
>> Weird logic if you can call it "logic" at all.
>>
>> Workarounds were implemented using the same compiler.
>> Fixed compiler version was a bonus.
>>
> Did you maintain a library of all your workaround code?  Did you
> maintain a testbed to determine if the software updates for that
> compiler still had the problems?  Now you're talking about
> man-year/year to keep track of the mess.

Did you maintain a library of all you compiler fixes?
Did you have to apply the same fixes to the subsequent version of the 
compiler?
Did you run complete set of compiler tests to make sure that your fix did 
not break something else?
Did you retest all your other projects to make sure that updated compiler 
did not break them either?

Now your are talking man-years of support and maintenance for what supposed 
to be compiler supplier's problem.

-- 
Andrew

Andrew wrote:
> "jmfbahciv" <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote in message
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> Read again. Did you have source code for the compilers, OSes, backup
>>> solutions, data storage systems, etc?
>> I answered the question.  Yes.
> 
> Impressive, but hard to believe.

then don't believe it; you won't learn anything either.

> Or there was a limited amount of software.

No.  We shipped what had to be supplied.

> 
>>> Not the ones you company developed, but the ones your company used during
>>> the development.
>> Yes.  I even knew how to cold start a computer with only a boot tape
>> (which I built) and a set of sources.  We used what we shipped and
>> we shipped what we used.
> 
> I see. It was long age when software was written by the great programmers 
> using hex numbers.

Splutter....[emoticon wipes of TTY screen]  No.

> 
> It was a great time, but it passed for the better or for worse.

Computer usages haven't changed and code is only code.  The situation
remains the same.  As I stated, the reason Linux is successful is
because the sources are available to anybody who wants to use them
or needs to use them.

> 
>>>>>>> Sources of compiler itself. Compiler errors are usually hard to
>>>>>>> detect.
>>>>>>> I found a couple of those. Took me a long time to realize it was a
>>>>>>> compiler error, not in my software.
>>>>>> How did you fix the bugs?
>>>>> As usual. Workaround in my software. Report them to compiler
>>>>> manufacturer.
>>>>> In one case bug was soon fixed in the next revision of the compiler. I
>>>>> was definitely not the only one who noticed it.
>>>> If that company was out of business, how would you have fixed the code
>>>> without sources?
>>> About 10 lines above there is a statement. "Workaround in my software."
>> So did you have to copy that code everywhere you might encounter the
>> bug?
> 
> Yes. workaround was not that complicated.

Wonderful...now you have lots of code which can break if your workaround
no longer works when the bug is fixed.

> 
>> Editing the compiler sources, rebuilding the compiler, would
>> have guaranteed that you wouldn't have that particular problem again.
> 
> And retest compiler modification to make sure you did not break something 
> else.
> 
> I am not in the compiler design business and I am sure people designing 
> compilers can do it better.

this has nothing to do with design.  For compiler design, read the standard.

> 
>>>> You would not have fixed it but would have had
>>>> to buy another vendor's software package.  Hence, my comment about
>>>> sources.
>>> Weird logic if you can call it "logic" at all.
>>>
>>> Workarounds were implemented using the same compiler.
>>> Fixed compiler version was a bonus.
>>>
>> Did you maintain a library of all your workaround code?  Did you
>> maintain a testbed to determine if the software updates for that
>> compiler still had the problems?  Now you're talking about
>> man-year/year to keep track of the mess.
> 
> Did you maintain a library of all you compiler fixes?

Yes, we did.

> Did you have to apply the same fixes to the subsequent version of the 
> compiler?

No because we put the fixes in the sources.

> Did you run complete set of compiler tests to make sure that your fix did 
> not break something else?

yes.

> Did you retest all your other projects to make sure that updated compiler 
> did not break them either?

Yes.  We had to.

> 
> Now your are talking man-years of support and maintenance for what supposed 
> to be compiler supplier's problem.
> 

Since you need the bug fixed, it is also becomes your problem.

/BAH