John Larkin wrote:

It's reasonable to prohibit the sale of poisons, carcinogens,
biohazards, and other things that are really bad. This is simply
keeping one class of people from harming another, like laws against
drunk driving and fraud. Mandatory warnings can be effective, too.

You are free to ignore the warnings, or make your own dangerous foods
for your private consumption.

Governments have radically changed their attitude about public risk in
the last 40 years or so. Remember when cars had metal dashes, no seat
belts, no side lights, and gas tanks that would incinerate you after a
rear-end collision? Remember when cans of fruit were sealed with lead
solder? Ungrounded metal-case drills and hot-chassis radios? Kids
furniture that would strangle or burn them to death?

The big scandal now is diesel particulates and maybe high-fructose
corn syrup.

John


Here is a sad news story about a couple and one teenaged son who were
electrocuted why trying to put up a tower the other night:

http://www.wftv.com/news/21277976/detail.html


--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!

John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:20:49 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:56:07 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:45:47 -0400, WangoTango
...
Ah, but the Casino debt was one VOLUNTARILY entered into.
When professionals use psychologists and advertizing and architects and
electronics and alcohol to predictably separate compulsive gamblers from
their assets, it's not exactly "voluntary."

Oh, feh. Are you volunteering to be The Great Nanny?

Gambling used to be illegal in most states. It still should be.

Puritan! That is going too far.

Gambling is only a serious problem for those with an addictive
personality (irrespective of their intelligence). The same could be said
of alcohol, tobacco and the other illegal drugs. There was some
impressive functional MRI demos of the brain differences on BBCs Horizon
last night (actually about alcohol).

Stupid people shouldn't be "protected" from the consequences of their own
stupidity.

Good grief, of course they should be. Why should being born with a low
IQ be a punishable (and exploitable) sin?

Survival of the fittest. Why should those of us with the capital,
contacts and skills not exploit all available resources to their utmost?
That is hard line unbridled capitalism. Nature red in tooth and claw.

The guy at the top of the corporation works hard because his contract
says win or lose he will be paid zillions of dollars. The guy who sweeps
the factory floor needs three jobs just to keep a roof over his head
and can be fired at a moments notice.

The least competant among us
are the ones most in need of protection from the most predatory among
us.

I never thought we would be on the same side. What you say is very
reasonable and most unexpected. If you haven't come across it before
Brecht & Eisler's "Supply and Demand - The Merchants Song" sums it up
very succinctly. A particularly fine recording of it is on "Robyn Archer
sings Bretch" (in English rather than the original German). MP3 is
online at Amazon of a different performance same artist.

National Lotteries are a particularly unkind tax on the innumerate poor.
The "It could be you" slogan hides a voluntary tax that the people least
able to afford it are suckered into paying.

Who would then protect us from the "protectors?"

Do you need to gamble?

No. But it is amusing once in a while. Particularly on games where the
odds can swing in favour of mathematically sophisticated punters. The
house always wins in the long term - at least after they fix up the
odds. For a while UK bookies odds for a hole in one at a golf major were
way out of line with reality until someone took them to the cleaners.

Sorry, but real life is tough.

And real people care about one another.

Really? Republicans hide this aspect of their nature very well.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:16:46 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:20:49 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:56:07 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:45:47 -0400, WangoTango
...
Ah, but the Casino debt was one VOLUNTARILY entered into.

When professionals use psychologists and advertizing and architects and
electronics and alcohol to predictably separate compulsive gamblers from
their assets, it's not exactly "voluntary."

Oh, feh. Are you volunteering to be The Great Nanny?

Gambling used to be illegal in most states. It still should be.
We all take risks every day.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide which ones?

As long as you don't run a casino, go for it.
That's backwards.






Stupid people shouldn't be "protected" from the consequences of their own
stupidity.

Good grief, of course they should be. Why should being born with a low
IQ be a punishable (and exploitable) sin? The least competant among us
are the ones most in need of protection from the most predatory among
us.
Darwinism.....



Who would then protect us from the "protectors?"

Do you need to gamble?
No, but that should be MY choice.

Some things aren't allowed, like bazookas and anthrax and unapproved
aircraft and cars without seat belts. To keep dangerous stuff out of
the hands of people who might hurt themselves or others. You may enjoy
shooting off bazookas in your back lot, but it's in society's interest
to make them hard to get.
Backwards logic AGAIN, and just plain stupid.
My right to throw punches ends at your nose.
Since when does a person being dangerous to others equate to a person
being dangerous to themselves?





Sorry, but real life is tough.

And real people care about one another.

And stupid should hurt......

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.
So, just how stupid does one have to be to fall under your protection,
how do we determine it, and where do we put them so they don't pose a
danger to themselves and the 'normal' people?


So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even
are), as if they had any control over being born that way. And they
think other people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not
being smart. It's the same as believing that having royal blood makes
one superior, or that the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of
humanity.

As opposed to being smug about being some kind of benevolent protector
of the great uneducated and mentally feeble? You want to control
people, and I do not.

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.
That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.
I see now why you like the nanny state ideology so much.
The world is a scary place and you might get hurt or lose something
important to you and the government should make sure that just can't
happen, even if it means controlling other people's freedoms.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.

The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer, they
could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

Haven't they required an ingredients list for decades?

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.

So, you really are advocating the God-damned Nanny State.

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even are),
as if they had any control over being born that way. And they think other
people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not being smart. It's
the same as believing that having royal blood makes one superior, or that
the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of humanity.

No, it's just that people who make defective fetuses should be the ones
responsible for their upkeep, not the taxpayers.

Thanks,
Rich

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom
and what should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who
should do the controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:22 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


And stupid should hurt......

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.
So, just how stupid does one have to be to fall under your protection,
how do we determine it, and where do we put them so they don't pose a
danger to themselves and the 'normal' people?

When some people do wide-spread harm to others, civil protections are
reasonable, regardless of how smart anybody is. Lots of smart people
have had their lives ruined by crack and meth and heroin, and by
gambling. One reason laws exist is to protect people from harm.



So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even
are), as if they had any control over being born that way. And they
think other people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not
being smart. It's the same as believing that having royal blood makes
one superior, or that the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of
humanity.

As opposed to being smug about being some kind of benevolent protector
of the great uneducated and mentally feeble?

Who do you refer to? Certainly not me. I don't even own a cape.

You want to control people, and I do not.

I seek to control nobody, not even my kids or my employees.
Politicians and kings do that.

My philosophy is summed up in the bumper sticker

MEAN PEOPLE SUCK

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:04:12 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.

No, it's electronic design and bidding on jobs and investing in things
and people. All are calculated risks where you do all you can to avoid
losing.

What do you do?

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:52:25 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:22 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

Lots of smart people have
had their lives ruined by crack and meth and heroin, and by gambling. One
reason laws exist is to protect people from harm.

Harm from OTHERS!!!!

Once again, when you try to protect me from myself, you are overriding
my Free Will. That's essentially the definition of evil.
...
You want to control people, and I do not.

I seek to control nobody, not even my kids or my employees. Politicians
and kings do that.

Classical double-think.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:12:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:52:25 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:22 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

Lots of smart people have
had their lives ruined by crack and meth and heroin, and by gambling. One
reason laws exist is to protect people from harm.

Harm from OTHERS!!!!

Yes. Like the people who manufacture crack and meth and heroin and
cigarettes and quack medicines and dangerous power tools.


Once again, when you try to protect me from myself, you are overriding
my Free Will. That's essentially the definition of evil.

Laws should protect you from being harmed by others. If you want to
make and consume your own meth, in your own house, it would be hard
for law enforcement to stop you. If you sell it in volume to others,
they often can and in my opinion should.

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:51 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.

So, you really are advocating the God-damned Nanny State.

If protecting old people and children from predators meets your
definition, yes.

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Skiing is an accepted risk. On a society-wide basis, it probably has
net physical and mental health benefits. I stay in shape so I can ski
better. And *all* risk shouldn't be legally mitigated... just the
really bad ones.

Crack cocaine isn't as good for people as skiing.

Should anthrax be available on ebay?

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:35:45 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even are),
as if they had any control over being born that way. And they think other
people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not being smart. It's
the same as believing that having royal blood makes one superior, or that
the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of humanity.

No, it's just that people who make defective fetuses should be the ones
responsible for their upkeep, not the taxpayers.


Mean people suck.

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom
and what should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who
should do the controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:29:38 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.

The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer, they
could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

Haven't they required an ingredients list for decades?

MSG is hidden under a score or so of names, many of which are
ambiguous, like "yeast extract" and "processed soy" and worse.

Google can furnish lots more.

I also love the now-popular "evaporated cane juice." Soon we'll have a
bunch of new terms for "salt."

John

In article t, WangoTango wrote:

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.
That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.
I see now why you like the nanny state ideology so much.
The world is a scary place and you might get hurt or lose something
important to you and the government should make sure that just can't
happen, even if it means controlling other people's freedoms.



I used to sit at the Keno chairs in the early 80's and noticed some numbers come up
more than others, or go in cycles. They used to use TWO old fashioned pingpong
ball machines. They would switch every once in a while. Today the machines
are much better and they only have to use ONE. I don't play that anymore.

I am pretty good at Trifectas. My method is simple but still a good good
guess. Two of the prefferd dogs or horses will usually come in
123. Its that third one in there thats a toss up. Pick
out ones that have high odds but have shown good speeds in the past
and throw them into the mix.

greg

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:04:12 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.

No, it's electronic design and bidding on jobs and investing in things
and people. All are calculated risks where you do all you can to avoid
losing.

What do you do?

Allow people to be free to make their own decisions, good and bad.
Treat adults like adults and not little children that need protection
from their own actions.

There is risk in all business and you have the freedom to take the risks
YOU see fit. Why is it you presume to know what is best for the rest of
humanity?

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:51 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.

So, you really are advocating the God-damned Nanny State.

If protecting old people and children from predators meets your
definition, yes.

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Skiing is an accepted risk. On a society-wide basis, it probably has
net physical and mental health benefits. I stay in shape so I can ski
better. And *all* risk shouldn't be legally mitigated... just the
really bad ones.

Crack cocaine isn't as good for people as skiing.

Should anthrax be available on ebay?

Can't differentiate between a person taking a personal risk and risking
the lives of others.
Hand waving and straw men........

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:22 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


And stupid should hurt......

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.
So, just how stupid does one have to be to fall under your protection,
how do we determine it, and where do we put them so they don't pose a
danger to themselves and the 'normal' people?

When some people do wide-spread harm to others, civil protections are
reasonable, regardless of how smart anybody is. Lots of smart people
have had their lives ruined by crack and meth and heroin, and by
gambling. One reason laws exist is to protect people from harm.

We are NOT talking about "wide-spread harm to others", we are talking
about what a PERSON does with his or her own money.
If you want to try and trumpet the successes of the "War on Drugs" you
have your work cut out for you.




So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even
are), as if they had any control over being born that way. And they
think other people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not
being smart. It's the same as believing that having royal blood makes
one superior, or that the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of
humanity.

As opposed to being smug about being some kind of benevolent protector
of the great uneducated and mentally feeble?

Who do you refer to? Certainly not me. I don't even own a cape.
Got a mirror handy?


You want to control people, and I do not.

I seek to control nobody, not even my kids or my employees.
Politicians and kings do that.

My philosophy is summed up in the bumper sticker

MEAN PEOPLE SUCK

And living under the thumb of busy body social engineers sucks worse.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And *all* risk shouldn't be legally mitigated... just the really bad
ones.

And who, exactly, makes that determination? Kim Jung Il? Rush Limbaugh?
Barack Hussein Obama? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Hamid Karzai?

You?

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

And *all* risk shouldn't be legally mitigated... just the really bad
ones.

And who, exactly, makes that determination? Kim Jung Il? Rush Limbaugh?
Barack Hussein Obama? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Hamid Karzai?

You?

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:51 -0700, Rich Grise

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Skiing is an accepted risk.

That's not what I asked.

Thanks anyway,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:51 -0700, Rich Grise

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Skiing is an accepted risk.

That's not what I asked.

Thanks anyway,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom and what
should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who should do the
controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

Ah. The Mobocracy. "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intent to protect us
from this form of tyranny as well.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom and what
should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who should do the
controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

Ah. The Mobocracy. "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intent to protect us
from this form of tyranny as well.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom and what
should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who should do the
controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

Ah. The Mobocracy. "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intent to protect us
from this form of tyranny as well.


How is preventing people from harming other people tyranny? That's
been a prime function of government since there has been government.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_...Welfare_Clause

I suppose you consider yourself smart enough and tough enough to take
care of yourself, without help from laws or cops or ER doctors. And
you resent government taking action to protect people who aren't as
smart and as tough as you are. You want them to suffer for their
stupidity and weakness, and for being born, presumably because you
enjoy that suffering as proof of your superiority. That sounds just
plain mean to me.

If I misunderstand your position, please correct me.

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:34:16 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:04:12 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.

No, it's electronic design and bidding on jobs and investing in things
and people. All are calculated risks where you do all you can to avoid
losing.

What do you do?

Allow people to be free to make their own decisions, good and bad.
Treat adults like adults and not little children that need protection
from their own actions.

There is risk in all business and you have the freedom to take the risks
YOU see fit. Why is it you presume to know what is best for the rest of
humanity?

I have opinions about what might minimize human misery on the planet.
And I care. I suppose you don't. You seem offended by the very concept
of caring about other people. Sad.

John

John Larkin wrote:

I have opinions about what might minimize human misery on the planet.
And I care.

Wow, Larkin's demagogy again. Not that I disagree with your points
however I put it straight: In the society where the miserables are not
taken care off, nobody is going to buy much of electronics. Those things
are related.

I suppose you don't. You seem offended by the very concept
of caring about other people. Sad.

Many seem to be offended by somebody deciding for them.

VLV

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:34:30 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:16:52 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:53 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:



I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.


The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer,
they could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

The issue wasn't 'disclosure labels' or else we could solve your
presumed gambling problem

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

You consider gambling a 'problem' that you want to 'fix' by making it
illegal.


by having them include "Warning, the Federal
Government has determined that loosing all your money could be
hazardous to your economic health," as if even the worst 'gambling
addict' didn't already know that.

Nor was I talking about 'labels', what with a bevy of groups demanding
dictates, or 'taxes', on what foods can, and cannot, be sold.

It's reasonable to prohibit the sale of poisons, carcinogens,
biohazards, and other things that are really bad. This is simply
keeping one class of people from harming another, like laws against
drunk driving and fraud. Mandatory warnings can be effective, too.

Oh yes, because we have so many deaths from folks swilling a pint of
poisonous 'gambler', driving while 'gambler', and 'biogambler waste
disposal'.

I began by saying I was not entirely unsympathetic to the case but the
more arguments you present the more I'm pushed in the other direction
because of the hysterical absurdity in comparing gambling to drinking
poison and the rest.

You are free to ignore the warnings, or make your own dangerous foods
for your private consumption.

Not in your preferred and 'wished for' solution to make gambling
illegal.

Governments have radically changed their attitude about public risk in
the last 40 years or so. Remember when cars had metal dashes, no seat
belts, no side lights, and gas tanks that would incinerate you after a
rear-end collision? Remember when cans of fruit were sealed with lead
solder? Ungrounded metal-case drills and hot-chassis radios? Kids
furniture that would strangle or burn them to death?

I've explained this to you before but you simply snip and ignore it.
The issue is free will and informed consent; and no one 'consents' to
being poisoned, electrocuted, or burned to death but people DO consent
to gambling. In fact, some consent to it so much they often flaunt
laws against it and in your zeal to 'save' them you likely turn them
into criminals. Thanks for the 'help'.


The big scandal now is diesel particulates and maybe high-fructose
corn syrup.

John

Flipper, You might as well give it up. You're fighting classic
Larkin... bad initial concept, then heels dug in when criticized ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:51 -0700, Rich Grise

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Skiing is an accepted risk.

That's not what I asked.


Hmmm, accepted by whom, and why is gambling, somehow, an unaccepted
risk?
We both know his reasoning is unreasonable.
I wonder how many people die from Black Jack every year.


Skiing/snowboarding (11/05)

2004 number of fatalities* 45
Number of participants (in millions)** 12.2
Fatalities per million participants 3.69
Days of participation (in millions)* 56.9
Fatalities per days of participation rate (per million) .79

Swimming

2004 number of fatalities*** 2,900
(Drowning: Includes drownings of person swimming or playing in water, or
falling into water, except on home premises or at work. Excludes
drownings involving boats, which are in water transportation)
2004 Number of participants (in millions)** 53.4
Fatalities per million participants 54.3
Days of participation (in millions)** 2294
Fatalities per days of participation rate (per million) 1.26

Bicycling (resulting from collisions with motor vehicles)

2004 number of fatalities*** 900
Number of participants (in millions)** 40.3
Fatalities per million participants 22.3
Days of participation (in millions)** 2,379
By days of participation rate (per million) .38

Sources:
* National Ski Areas Association
** National Sporting Goods Association (Sports Participation, 2004
edition)
***National Safety Council (Injury Facts, 2005-2006 edition)
**** Divers Alert Network, North Carolina
Note: The "participant per million" rate is calculated by dividing the
number of fatalities by the number of participants. The "days of
participation" rate is calculated by dividing the number of fatalities
by the days of participation.

In article ,
says...

How is preventing people from harming other people tyranny? That's
been a prime function of government since there has been government.

Still stuck on that "others" thing.
That's not the issue, you were yapping on about protecting people from
themselves, BIG difference.

In article ,
says...


John Larkin wrote:

I have opinions about what might minimize human misery on the planet.
And I care.

Wow, Larkin's demagogy again. Not that I disagree with your points
however I put it straight: In the society where the miserables are not
taken care off, nobody is going to buy much of electronics. Those things
are related.

I suppose you don't. You seem offended by the very concept
of caring about other people. Sad.

Many seem to be offended by somebody deciding for them.

Yep, THAT is the issue.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:05:52 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom and what
should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who should do the
controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

Ah. The Mobocracy. "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intent to protect us
from this form of tyranny as well.


How is preventing people from harming other people tyranny? That's
been a prime function of government since there has been government.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_...Welfare_Clause

I don't know what you think a discussion on taxation has to do with
your proposed and 'wished for' solution to make gambling illegal.

The issue is whether the federal government can "provide for the
general welfare", which the referenced clause relates to. Gambling
certainly contributes to government revenues, but I don't thing it
improves the general welfare. It used to be illegal in most states.

John

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:49:36 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...

How is preventing people from harming other people tyranny? That's
been a prime function of government since there has been government.

Still stuck on that "others" thing.
That's not the issue, you were yapping on about protecting people from
themselves, BIG difference.

I was talking about protecting people from gigabuck casino operators.

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

John

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:14:34 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:16:46 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:20:49 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:56:07 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:45:47 -0400, WangoTango
...
Ah, but the Casino debt was one VOLUNTARILY entered into.

When professionals use psychologists and advertizing and architects and
electronics and alcohol to predictably separate compulsive gamblers from
their assets, it's not exactly "voluntary."

Oh, feh. Are you volunteering to be The Great Nanny?

Gambling used to be illegal in most states. It still should be.
We all take risks every day.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide which ones?

As long as you don't run a casino, go for it.

You won't let him because you're determined to make 'gambling'
illegal.


Professional, casino/lottery type gambling used to be illegal in most
places.

And no one gambled, right? Except in homes, back alleys, and
speakeasys next to the 'prohibition' bar.

Yes. My family used to gather on Saturday nights and drink beer and
play poker, while the kids went wild in another room. The game was
fair. Casinos and lotteries aren't fair; they are run by professionals
who employ psychologists and mathematicians to make sure people bet
and lose, no matter how skilled they are.


I think it should be again. I'm not "determined to make
gambling illegal", because I obviously can't.

I didn't say you had the power but if things were, somehow, left to
you it would be.

Sure. If I ruled the world there are lots of things I'd change.
Starting with Windows.



Informal gambling, poker with the neighbors or church bingo, isn't so
bad, because those neighbors seldom have the manipulative resources
that billion-dollar enterprises have.

You mean like the 'manipulative power' of having to seek your own
bookie, start your own back alley crap game, or find a blank door
speakeasy because it's 'illegal'?

I want to know just WHEN you think it was that people didn't gamble
and just where were are all 'das blinkin lighten' and 'manipulative
power' in the classic western where a fool gambles his farm away?

Frankly, I think the 'manipulative power' argument is just an excuse
because if bells and blinking lights were 'the problem' then pin ball
machines should have been banned ages ago, and certainly video games.

Gambling on pinball machines is still illegal in many places. Video
games are sometimes destructive, as is television, but there's no
prectical way to eliminate them. Casinos and meth labs are things we
can do something about. The only principle involved is trying to make
life better wherever we can.


Hell, the casinos won't let you
play if you have too much skill, like being able to count cards. Or
even if you have too much luck.

So what?


Technology has provided many new ways for the skilled to exploit the
evolutionary appetites of the weak.

"Evolutionary appetites?" I hadn't heard they found a casino in the
Ardipithecus dig.

People have basic appetites for speed and risk and pleasure.
Professionals can use technology and chemistry to exploit those
appetites to previously nonexistant levels. Some peoples' lives are
ruined. Nobody is helped but the pros doing the exploiting.


As time goes on, fewer and fewer
will have the self-control to resist "better and better" addictive
drugs and artificial flavors and chemically-doctored cigarettes and
psychologically-optimized slot machines. Some control is reasonable.

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

John

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:54:48 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

I have opinions about what might minimize human misery on the planet.
And I care.

Wow, Larkin's demagogy again. Not that I disagree with your points
however I put it straight: In the society where the miserables are not
taken care off, nobody is going to buy much of electronics. Those things
are related.

I don't follow that reasoning at all.


I suppose you don't. You seem offended by the very concept
of caring about other people. Sad.

Many seem to be offended by somebody deciding for them.

Then they should move to some lawless place in the world and fight it
out like real men.

John

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:34:30 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:16:52 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:53 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:



I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.


The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer,
they could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

The issue wasn't 'disclosure labels' or else we could solve your
presumed gambling problem

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

You consider gambling a 'problem' that you want to 'fix' by making it
illegal.


by having them include "Warning, the Federal
Government has determined that loosing all your money could be
hazardous to your economic health," as if even the worst 'gambling
addict' didn't already know that.

Nor was I talking about 'labels', what with a bevy of groups demanding
dictates, or 'taxes', on what foods can, and cannot, be sold.

It's reasonable to prohibit the sale of poisons, carcinogens,
biohazards, and other things that are really bad. This is simply
keeping one class of people from harming another, like laws against
drunk driving and fraud. Mandatory warnings can be effective, too.

Oh yes, because we have so many deaths from folks swilling a pint of
poisonous 'gambler', driving while 'gambler', and 'biogambler waste
disposal'.

I began by saying I was not entirely unsympathetic to the case but the
more arguments you present the more I'm pushed in the other direction
because of the hysterical absurdity in comparing gambling to drinking
poison and the rest.

You are free to ignore the warnings, or make your own dangerous foods
for your private consumption.

Not in your preferred and 'wished for' solution to make gambling
illegal.

Casino and lottery gambling used to be illegal in all the states and
is still illegal in many of them. Lately many state governments have
seen professional gambling as a means of generating revenue, so the
moral concerns are being overridden by the need for cash.

I think it's better where professional gambling is illegal. Casios and
lotteries bleed the people who can least afford it, which is very
regressive taxation. State lotteries are especially nasty in this
respect.



Governments have radically changed their attitude about public risk in
the last 40 years or so. Remember when cars had metal dashes, no seat
belts, no side lights, and gas tanks that would incinerate you after a
rear-end collision? Remember when cans of fruit were sealed with lead
solder? Ungrounded metal-case drills and hot-chassis radios? Kids
furniture that would strangle or burn them to death?

I've explained this to you before but you simply snip and ignore it.
The issue is free will and informed consent; and no one 'consents' to
being poisoned, electrocuted, or burned to death but people DO consent
to gambling. In fact, some consent to it so much they often flaunt
laws against it and in your zeal to 'save' them you likely turn them
into criminals. Thanks for the 'help'.

You don't get the choice to buy a car without seat belts; lots of
people would. You don't get the legal choice to buy asbestos wallboard
or to possess crack cocaine. Free will *is* limited by law, in the
public interest.

John

In article , John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:34:30 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:16:52 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:53 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:



I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.


The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer,
they could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

The issue wasn't 'disclosure labels' or else we could solve your
presumed gambling problem

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

You consider gambling a 'problem' that you want to 'fix' by making it
illegal.


by having them include "Warning, the Federal
Government has determined that loosing all your money could be
hazardous to your economic health," as if even the worst 'gambling
addict' didn't already know that.

Nor was I talking about 'labels', what with a bevy of groups demanding
dictates, or 'taxes', on what foods can, and cannot, be sold.

It's reasonable to prohibit the sale of poisons, carcinogens,
biohazards, and other things that are really bad. This is simply
keeping one class of people from harming another, like laws against
drunk driving and fraud. Mandatory warnings can be effective, too.

Oh yes, because we have so many deaths from folks swilling a pint of
poisonous 'gambler', driving while 'gambler', and 'biogambler waste
disposal'.

I began by saying I was not entirely unsympathetic to the case but the
more arguments you present the more I'm pushed in the other direction
because of the hysterical absurdity in comparing gambling to drinking
poison and the rest.

You are free to ignore the warnings, or make your own dangerous foods
for your private consumption.

Not in your preferred and 'wished for' solution to make gambling
illegal.

Casino and lottery gambling used to be illegal in all the states and
is still illegal in many of them. Lately many state governments have
seen professional gambling as a means of generating revenue, so the
moral concerns are being overridden by the need for cash.


Seems I know the family of one of the fathers of the number game.
Family still runs a bar.
I think the numbers started in the 30's. The new casino in Casino in Pittsburgh is
drawing about half of what was expected. Did they know about the economy ?

Trying to get table games.

Oh don't forget about our local TV station that rigged some numbers drawn from
the state lottery machine. As I remember, they injected fluid into them.


RIP Bob Stupak, from Pittsburgh. I like his Stratosphere dream.

greg

In article , John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:34:30 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:16:52 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:27:53 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:



I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.


The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer,
they could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

The issue wasn't 'disclosure labels' or else we could solve your
presumed gambling problem

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

You consider gambling a 'problem' that you want to 'fix' by making it
illegal.


by having them include "Warning, the Federal
Government has determined that loosing all your money could be
hazardous to your economic health," as if even the worst 'gambling
addict' didn't already know that.

Nor was I talking about 'labels', what with a bevy of groups demanding
dictates, or 'taxes', on what foods can, and cannot, be sold.

It's reasonable to prohibit the sale of poisons, carcinogens,
biohazards, and other things that are really bad. This is simply
keeping one class of people from harming another, like laws against
drunk driving and fraud. Mandatory warnings can be effective, too.

Oh yes, because we have so many deaths from folks swilling a pint of
poisonous 'gambler', driving while 'gambler', and 'biogambler waste
disposal'.

I began by saying I was not entirely unsympathetic to the case but the
more arguments you present the more I'm pushed in the other direction
because of the hysterical absurdity in comparing gambling to drinking
poison and the rest.

You are free to ignore the warnings, or make your own dangerous foods
for your private consumption.

Not in your preferred and 'wished for' solution to make gambling
illegal.

Casino and lottery gambling used to be illegal in all the states and
is still illegal in many of them. Lately many state governments have
seen professional gambling as a means of generating revenue, so the
moral concerns are being overridden by the need for cash.


Seems I know the family of one of the fathers of the number game.
Family still runs a bar.
I think the numbers started in the 30's. The new casino in Casino in Pittsburgh is
drawing about half of what was expected. Did they know about the economy ?

Trying to get table games.

Oh don't forget about our local TV station that rigged some numbers drawn from
the state lottery machine. As I remember, they injected fluid into them.


RIP Bob Stupak, from Pittsburgh. I like his Stratosphere dream.

greg