On 02/13/2016 01:53 PM, Don Y wrote:

[snip]

In some cases, perhaps. But I think the overwhelming reason is laziness:
"Aw, c'mon... do I REALLY have to walk all the way down THERE (to get the
protections that taxpayers have paid for on behalf of pedestrian traffic)?"


It can be safer to cross the street in the middle of a block. Only 2
directions to check for traffic, rather than 4.

Of course, that's if you watch where you're going.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The universal cosmic process was not created by any god or man; it
forever was, is, and forever will be, an Everliving Fire." [Heraclitus
of Ephesus, 500 BC]

On 02/13/2016 02:24 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

The thing is, we shouldn't be doing 40 hours of work. Machines are
doing way more than they used to, we should be working a fraction as
much as we used to. What went wrong?
I spend most of my work time fixing the machines - - - -

But imagine those machines didn't exist and you had to do the work the
machines currently do. That would take longer.


That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a
machine that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What
do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and
continue to pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of
work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all
day to do it.

--
"...it would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to
blaspheme Him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin." -- Thomas
Jefferson

On 02/14/2016 11:55 AM, wrote:
When my kid brother was an owner / operator he thought he was making
good money untill the truck he had finally finished paying off
required $20,000 of work. Get it fixed and the day after that repair
was paid off, something else went wrong - or he hit a herd of 26
antelope - or got struck by lightning - - -

He finally decided getting paid by the mile or hour and driving
someone else's truck made a lot more cents.

That was my analysis. I was taking a break from my normally scheduled
programming and not looking for a career opportunity but I had plenty of
time to learn the ropes. For the naive OO, times seem great as they
conveniently forget that baby is going to need a new set of shoes at
about $450 a pop. Even little things can wipe out the profit of a haul.
The DOT is very critical of cracked windshields. I had one replaced and
made it almost 400 miles before a flying rock took the new one out.

If I did go into it, I thought the hotshot route was the better way.
With a fairly new F350 and trailer you're out a lot less that a decent
used Class 8 tractor. Tag it for 26,000 gross and you avoid a lot of
paperwork. The problem is that limits you to about 10,000 pounds. It
would be fairly easy to find a load of plastic stock tanks or irrigation
pipe going to Montana, but you would pay hell getting a load back out.

I enjoyed it and it was something I'd wanted to do as a kid. otoh, I
didn't have a family and I knew when I got tired of driving around the
country I had other options.

On 02/13/2016 02:29 PM, Micky wrote:

[snip]

I think it's called a back formation, from an earlier word. It may be
standard some day.Quite a few of words we use all the time started
that way.

Including "lase" (from LASER).

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The universal cosmic process was not created by any god or man; it
forever was, is, and forever will be, an Everliving Fire." [Heraclitus
of Ephesus, 500 BC]

On 2/14/2016 12:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/13/2016 01:53 PM, Don Y wrote:

[snip]

In some cases, perhaps. But I think the overwhelming reason is laziness:
"Aw, c'mon... do I REALLY have to walk all the way down THERE (to get the
protections that taxpayers have paid for on behalf of pedestrian traffic)?"

It can be safer to cross the street in the middle of a block. Only 2 directions
to check for traffic, rather than 4.

Of course, that's if you watch where you're going.

Traffic (here) in the middle of a block is easily doing 45-55MPH
and NOT expecting someone to step out from between parked cars.

At an intersection (with pedestrian control signal), you typically
only have to look in *one* direction as the traffic in the other(s)
is stopped.

On 2/14/2016 1:08 PM, Sam E wrote:
On 02/13/2016 02:24 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

The thing is, we shouldn't be doing 40 hours of work. Machines are
doing way more than they used to, we should be working a fraction as
much as we used to. What went wrong?
I spend most of my work time fixing the machines - - - -

But imagine those machines didn't exist and you had to do the work the
machines currently do. That would take longer.


That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a machine
that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and continue to
pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all day to do
it.

D) Retrain one of them to REPAIR the machine when it breaks.

On 02/14/2016 12:57 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
It can be safer to cross the street in the middle of a block. Only 2
directions to check for traffic, rather than 4.

Absolutely. Many days I walk over to a shopping center during lunch.
There is a 4-way stop on the way with no marked pedestrian crosswalk on
any of the legs. I find it much safer to cross in the middle of the
block where I can see approaching vehicles from both directions rather
than threading my way through the intersection where some drivers will
be turning in either direction and others going straight.

I've been dealing with that particular intersection for 16 years and
haven't got hit once

On 02/14/2016 01:20 PM, Don Y wrote:
Traffic (here) in the middle of a block is easily doing 45-55MPH
and NOT expecting someone to step out from between parked cars.

At an intersection (with pedestrian control signal), you typically
only have to look in *one* direction as the traffic in the other(s)
is stopped.


During my lunchtime walks I sometimes cross a 4 lane arterial with a 45
mph speed limit. While it is inconvenient I go to the intersections with
a pedestrian control signal.

Otoh, I more frequently have to deal with an uncontrolled 4-way stop
intersection of two 25 mph streets. Since incoming traffic from all
directions can either turn left, turn right, or go straight crossing in
the middle of the block where there is only traffic from both directions
is much easier. Unless they're driving a top fuel dragster I've got a
good idea of how long it will take a driver exiting the intersection
from a dead stop to reach me, so it's only one stream of traffic that's
doing 25.

On 02/14/2016 01:08 PM, Sam E wrote:

That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a
machine that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What
do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and
continue to pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of
work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all
day to do it.


I'm a sucker for museums do I can't remember which one it was, possibly
the Ford. Anyway, it followed household appliances through the years.
They noted as labor saving devices were introduced women found more
complicated things to fill their days with.

I've certainly seen it in my career from those unreadable reports
printed on green bar paper to the latest dashboard with burn down
graphs, pie charts, and so forth. I haven't noticed management getting
more productive but the managers certainly have more toys to keep them busy.

So, based on personal experience, I'll go with C.

On 2/14/2016 3:11 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 01:08 PM, Sam E wrote:

That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a
machine that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What
do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and
continue to pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of
work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all
day to do it.


I'm a sucker for museums do I can't remember which one it was, possibly
the Ford. Anyway, it followed household appliances through the years.
They noted as labor saving devices were introduced women found more
complicated things to fill their days with.

I've certainly seen it in my career from those unreadable reports
printed on green bar paper to the latest dashboard with burn down
graphs, pie charts, and so forth. I haven't noticed management getting
more productive but the managers certainly have more toys to keep them
busy.

So, based on personal experience, I'll go with C.

There's nothing like graphs, pie charts, and statistics in a spreadsheet
to make a manager salivate! Oh, and they like their calculators, too.

--
Maggie

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:07:54 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:49:01 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:40:44 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:31:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:58:47 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:31:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:38:53 -0000, Tony Hwang wrote:

philo wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:



My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.




Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

What about tail lights? There are still many older cars/trucks on the
road yet.

An even stupider thing about daytime running lights is they don't turn the tail lights on, which means there are now loads of people driving around at night with only the front lights on, not realising they are unlit at the back. If you have no front lights on in the day, when it gets dark you notice.
You don't have lights on your speedo and other guages either, dummy.

That would be because I can see them without lights all over them, just like I can see other cars without lights all over them.

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

Not all roads are "devided coachways" like your motorways. There are
millions of miles of "2 lane blacktop" in the world - and a whole lot
of them are in North America (also lots of it in Europe and Africa -
as well as the rest of the world)
Without seeing approaching cars, pulling out to pass can be a very
deadly move.

Pulling out to pass when you can't be sure the other side is empty is ****ing stupid.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at 50mph the other way.

Which causes more damage to your car and you?

Most definitely 2 vehicles meeting at 50kph. The same as 100kph into a
solid brick wall.

WRONG, they're precisely the same. If you think of it in terms of kinetic energy, there is twice as much energy dissipated in twice as many cars, so each car gets the same. If you think of it in terms of deceleration, in both cases each car decelerates from 50mph to 0mph in the time taken for its own crumple zone to crumple.

The only reason they'd be different is if one vehicle was heavier than the other. Then the lighter vehicle would end up moving backwards after the collision, so experience more deceleration. The heavier vehicle would still keep moving in the same direction but slower, so experience less deceleration.

But that is NOT the issue. It is the amount of time you have to react.
You are just as dead when you hit at 100 as you are at 190. The secret
is in NOT being dead.. Closing speed is not as important as closing
TIME.

But if you stay on your own side of the road, you only have to worry about cars going the same way as you.

--
Keep your nose to the grindstone, your shoulder to the wheel, your eye on the ball, and your ear to the ground. Then see how much work you get done in that position.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 02:08:20 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 8:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 03:04 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You've got it backwards anyway: "Clare is a given name, the Medieval
English form of Clara.[1] The related name Clair was traditionally
considered male, especially when spelled without an 'e',[2] but Clare
and Claire are usually female."

As someone from a country where Evelyn Waugh married Evelyn Gardner and
it wasn't a same sex marriage, there might be some confusion with
British names

Clare can be a last name too.

I've heard that in French, but not in any normal country.

--
The probability that a given thread has degenerated into a ****ing contest is directly proportional to its number of replies.

Per rbowman:
all I know of Yorkshire comes from Ken Loach's film, 'The Navigators'.
The takeaway from that was Yorkies do not speak English. It was as
incomprehensible as 'Trainspotters' or 'Sexy Beast'.

It's in Somerset, not Yorkshire - but when I was there for a family
reunion in a town called Wells, I came across two local-color types
having an extended conversation in the local dialect.

I could not even catch the drift of what they were saying - and I really
tried.... not one word... they might as well have been speaking
Mandarin.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 17:51:22 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 07:41 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

I see you're not a Yorkshireman.

all I know of Yorkshire comes from Ken Loach's film, 'The Navigators'.
The takeaway from that was Yorkies do not speak English. It was as
incomprehensible as 'Trainspotters' or 'Sexy Beast'.

It's easier to understand than American.

--
The teacher wrote "Like I ain't had no fun in months" on the board and then she said, "Timmy, how should I correct that?"
Timmy replied, "Maybe get a new boyfriend?"

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 02:11:20 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/13/2016 02:54 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:48:44 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/13/2016 08:25 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:

How absurd. Don't the Canadians trust the Americans? If it was ok in
one country, it's ok in another one.

How absurd is it that I have two motorcycles that are only legal in 49
states? That doesn't mean I can't ride through California but I couldn't
register them in the state.

Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

No way, no day. For example, almost all of my firearms would be illegal
in New York state because of regulations pushed through by Cuomo. If the
people of NY want to put up with his liberal, gun-grabbing crap, that is
their prerogative. It will not fly in Montana.

No offense, but you could stick Great Britain out in the eastern part of
Montana where not too much lives except prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
This is a vast country and as you might gather from US politics, the
different regions have as much use for the others as some Scots have for
England.

Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The other one should follow suit.

--
A dyslexic man walks into a bra.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 02:27:12 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/13/2016 02:55 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I've heard of one where they had to fit larger wheels so the headlights
were at the correct minimum height. In the UK we only have a maximum
height.

The fitting of larger wheels actually ruined the handling and made the
car more dangerous. Health and softy shooting itself in the foot.

It would be hard enough to put big enough tires on a Lotus Super Seven
to make it legal In fact, I think the Evora is the only street legal
model in the US.

Even worse are French cars; except for those imported by individuals
they haven't been in the US market for 25 years. It's an economic
decision. Can they sell enough to bother to meet US certification?
Apparently they can meet the European Certificate of Conformance.

Y'all can keep on drivin' yer ****ty Merkin **** wiv yer 6 litre injuns wat only put out ninety horses.

--
Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two other sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 02:35:24 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/13/2016 03:02 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
If it was sensible then, it's sensible now.

Sensible and legal are not the same thing. Prior to 1999, the daytime
speed limit outside of town was 'reasonable and proper'. That tended to
be around 100 on a lot of roads. Then the maximum was dropped to 75. Was
that more sensible? Last year it was increased to 80. Sensible now?

I don't do laws. I do what I think is right. Some things are legal, like shooting deer, but I don't do that. Some things are illegal like [CENSORED] but I do that copiously.

--
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

On 2/14/2016 4:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
all I know of Yorkshire comes from Ken Loach's film, 'The Navigators'.
The takeaway from that was Yorkies do not speak English. It was as
incomprehensible as 'Trainspotters' or 'Sexy Beast'.


It's in Somerset, not Yorkshire - but when I was there for a family
reunion in a town called Wells, I came across two local-color types
having an extended conversation in the local dialect.

I could not even catch the drift of what they were saying - and I really
tried.... not one word... they might as well have been speaking
Mandarin.


That's what a room full of people sound like to me when I don't have my
hearing aides in!

--
Maggie

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 03:29:09 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:47:05 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:



I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.

How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.

Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.

Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.

Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.

If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.

Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.

Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.

It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.

When I lived in NY, on a Sunday afternoon, I went with my girlfriend
to the apt. of a friend of hers, and his girlfriend had had a
toothache since Friday or Saturday, getting worse and worse. She
couldn't eat, could barely talk. I said, Why don't you go to the
dentist! They said, Monday. I said, Why don't you go now? It's
Sunday. I said, That's what 24 hour dentists are for.

I've put off visiting a dentist for toothache for 2 weeks, at which point I was getting fed up of taking so many painkillers. Two days is not a problem.

So NYC has over 2 million people, not counting the other boros (and
why count them?)

What is a boro?

Usually spelled borough. NYC has five of them.

NYC is better than everyone else? Got a big ego?

and in the yellow pages were about 20 24-hour
dentists. One of us called them one by one and learned that the first
seven didnt' do that anymore. Because they only do that until they
get enough patients to keep busy. No one wants to be bothered on
weekends or the middle of the night. But the 8th guy said come on
over. It took less than 30 minutes for her and her boyfriend to get
there, less than 30 minutes for the dentist to fix her. and she was
back in less than 90 minutes. And he didnt' charge any more than her
regular dentist would have charged, or maybe 10% more.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.

People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.

He does have a receptionist during office hours.

My vet has a 24/7 number, a pet could be in danger of dying. You don't die of toothache.

Most dentists have emergency numbers. This one did too. It's just
that HE was the only dentist reachable at the emergency number and he
wasnt' always reachable.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.
......

The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.

Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light?

Only that I don't know how to do it.

If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.

Change the wire to the fuse? Do you know how much effort that is?

Virtually none. Takes about as long as changing a wheel.

Of if you mean run a wire from the hot end of one fuse to the cold end of
the other fuse, that's a lot of effort too.

No, just change the hot end of the fuse to the other input. There's 2 inputs to a fusebox, one is only on with the ignition, the other comes straight from the battery. There will be unused fuse containers, use one of those if it's easier.

I'm looking for a way
to turn the lights on when the engine is off, just like all cars
worked until 1995. Not a whole project.

AFAIK all Vauxhalls do that anyway. Bloody annoying as you can more easily run the battery flat. Plus when I park the car for two minutes and don't turn the lights off, I've got a parked car dazzling people unnecessarily. I already removed the bleeping thing in anger that warns me I dared to open the door and left the lights on.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that,

To see how well the lights are working, to see if changing a bulb
really fixed it, etc.

Just turn on the ignition?

If you really think that is the right answer, why did you just spend
several lines explaining your much too difficult way to turn the
lights on without the engine.

Because I thought you wanted to do it regularly.

but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.

There are two sensors and I've forgotten which is which. I suspect
if your method, turning the switch off and on, works, it will work day
and night.

If I ever got a car that decided itself when it was dark, I'd disable it immediately, or at least adjust it to when I think it's dark.

I like it. And while I've thought about making the intermittent
wiper wipe less often, I've been fully satisfied with the light
sensor.

Is it anything like half the drivers who turn lights on when it's not even dark enough for me to be able to tell it's got darker? A camera could, but not my eyes.

If it did something wrong, I'd probably notice. I had a list of 30
things I didn't like about this 2000 Solara convertible, 15 because it
was a convertible and 15 because it was a Toyota. Previous cars have
never had more than 2 or 3 things wrong. So I'm not easy to please
but the photocell is fine afaict.

I've never moaned about more than 2 things with one car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.
LOL

My "random" sig generator seems to pay a lot of attention to the discussion in hand.

--
Say it with flowers - send her a triffid.

On 2/14/2016 5:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

No way, no day. For example, almost all of my firearms would be illegal
in New York state because of regulations pushed through by Cuomo. If the
people of NY want to put up with his liberal, gun-grabbing crap, that is
their prerogative. It will not fly in Montana.

No offense, but you could stick Great Britain out in the eastern part of
Montana where not too much lives except prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
This is a vast country and as you might gather from US politics, the
different regions have as much use for the others as some Scots have for
England.

Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Not that simple. What is a law in Connecticut has no bearing on
situations in Arizona. All states have laws requiring auto
registration, driver's license. Tax laws differ since the budgets
differ considerably.

Given your comment, the laws in your country should be the same as the
laws in France and Poland.

On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I
conclude the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

On 2/14/2016 4:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I conclude
the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

And, by extension, all countries should have the same set of laws!

Extrapolating from that, all countries should speak the same language, have
the same currency, etc.

Right?

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:34:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I
conclude the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Uganda is a bit more backward than us. They should take ours.

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

Then it should be ignored.

--
Ireland's worst air disaster occurred early this morning when a small two-seater Cessna plane crashed into a cemetery. Irish search and rescue workers have recovered 2826 bodies so far and expect that number to climb as digging continues into the night.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:08:02 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2016 5:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

No way, no day. For example, almost all of my firearms would be illegal
in New York state because of regulations pushed through by Cuomo. If the
people of NY want to put up with his liberal, gun-grabbing crap, that is
their prerogative. It will not fly in Montana.

No offense, but you could stick Great Britain out in the eastern part of
Montana where not too much lives except prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
This is a vast country and as you might gather from US politics, the
different regions have as much use for the others as some Scots have for
England.

Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Not that simple. What is a law in Connecticut has no bearing on
situations in Arizona. All states have laws requiring auto
registration, driver's license. Tax laws differ since the budgets
differ considerably.

Unless there is some physical difference, like one has a lack of water so you have laws about washing your car, then there is no need for differing laws.

Given your comment, the laws in your country should be the same as the
laws in France and Poland.

But we're seperate countries. The USA is one country with different laws in different parts of it. A right royal ****up.

--
I imposed a declaration in opposition to your motion to modify the preliminary injunction in support of the cross motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. So noted by the Federal Court of Justice proceeding preliminary declaration.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:38:29 -0000, Don Y wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I conclude
the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

And, by extension, all countries should have the same set of laws!

Extrapolating from that, all countries should speak the same language, have
the same currency, etc.

Right?

Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening courtesy of the internet.

--
Uncle Larry was smoking in a restaurant the other day when a guy came up to him and said, "That smoke's bothering me."
Larry said, "Well, it's killing me. If I don't care about what it's doing to me, why would I give a **** what it's doing to you?"

On 2/14/2016 4:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:34:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I
conclude the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Uganda is a bit more backward than us. They should take ours.

Maybe we should use population as an indication? Would you like
instructions on the how/when/why of *bowing*?

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

Then it should be ignored.

On 02/14/2016 03:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Y'all can keep on drivin' yer ****ty Merkin **** wiv yer 6 litre injuns
wat only put out ninety horses.

Actually, I drive a 1.5 liter Toyota. Back in the day, I drove an
Austin-Healey but those are history from the last century. Some of my
friends drove MGs. That marque lives on and I understand the Chinese
even sent the kits to Britain to be assembled for old times sake.

I do like some of the new Thairumph bikes though.

On 02/14/2016 03:34 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I don't do laws. I do what I think is right. Some things are legal,
like shooting deer, but I don't do that. Some things are illegal like
[CENSORED] but I do that copiously.

You would go far in the states. I imagine what you think right closely
corresponds to the laws unless you're very familiar with the living
arrangements at HMP Perth.

On 2/14/2016 2:11 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 01:08 PM, Sam E wrote:

That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a
machine that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What
do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and
continue to pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of
work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all
day to do it.

I'm a sucker for museums do I can't remember which one it was, possibly the
Ford. Anyway, it followed household appliances through the years. They noted as
labor saving devices were introduced women found more complicated things to
fill their days with.

Yes. The number of hours spent on "housework" has remained constant;
regardless of the number (and cost!) of "labor saving" devices introduced.

Tasks that were not considered part of "normal" housework crept
into the list (when floors were made of dirt, I don't imagine
they got washed AND waxed often! : ). And, still other "labor
saving" devices just altered the character of the labor but didn't
really "save" any.

E.g., we have a honking big "juicer" that we use for our citrus.
Definitely a labor saver -- in terms of elbow grease. *But*,
it needs to be cleaned after use -- as the pulp gets trapped in
the places that are *supposed* to trap it, you can't just drop it
in a dishwasher but, instead, need to clean it by hand. And, if you
don't want the stainless to spot, it must be dried by hand. Then,
reassembled and stored.

Of course, it also clogs *while* juicing. So, you must disassemble it
and do a cursory cleaning frequently. And, shut down the motor while
you're doing that -- which means waiting for it to spin up, again,
later.

I've certainly seen it in my career from those unreadable reports printed on
green bar paper to the latest dashboard with burn down graphs, pie charts, and
so forth. I haven't noticed management getting more productive but the managers
certainly have more toys to keep them busy.

Look at how long it takes to write a simple memo! And, how many times
it gets *printed* (proofs) before it gets distributed -- in our
PAPERLESS offices! Do you see better grammar in those? Or, fewer
typographical errors? I.e., isn't that what all those composition
tools are *supposed* to address??

Closer to home: look at the advances in 4G languages (compared to
earlier purely procedural languages). All the mechanisms that are
supposed to make it easier to write *better* ("more correct")
programs. Yet, programmer productivity remains astonishingly low
and code quality equally poor. The only thing that has "improved"
is the size of executables (if you consider "getting bigger" to be
an improvement : )!

So, based on personal experience, I'll go with C.

On 2/14/2016 6:40 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Not that simple. What is a law in Connecticut has no bearing on
situations in Arizona. All states have laws requiring auto
registration, driver's license. Tax laws differ since the budgets
differ considerably.

Unless there is some physical difference, like one has a lack of water
so you have laws about washing your car, then there is no need for
differing laws.

You lack of knowledge of the US is showing. Fifty states over many
thousand miles there are many physical differences. Our government was
set up to give the states some independence also.



Given your comment, the laws in your country should be the same as the
laws in France and Poland.

But we're seperate countries. The USA is one country with different
laws in different parts of it. A right royal ****up.


You are all part of the EU and the same continent. A very similar
origin as the states came about at different times. It would only be a
Royal ****up if we had a Queen's ass to kiss like GB does.

On 2/14/2016 2:05 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 01:20 PM, Don Y wrote:
Traffic (here) in the middle of a block is easily doing 45-55MPH
and NOT expecting someone to step out from between parked cars.

At an intersection (with pedestrian control signal), you typically
only have to look in *one* direction as the traffic in the other(s)
is stopped.

During my lunchtime walks I sometimes cross a 4 lane arterial with a 45 mph
speed limit. While it is inconvenient I go to the intersections with a
pedestrian control signal.

Otoh, I more frequently have to deal with an uncontrolled 4-way stop
intersection of two 25 mph streets. Since incoming traffic from all directions
can either turn left, turn right, or go straight crossing in the middle of the
block where there is only traffic from both directions is much easier. Unless
they're driving a top fuel dragster I've got a good idea of how long it will
take a driver exiting the intersection from a dead stop to reach me, so it's
only one stream of traffic that's doing 25.

You have longer reaction times for yourself AND for the driver(s).

When I walk to the local library branch, there's a stretch where I'm
walking along a roadway with 55MPH speed limit (a few blocks from here).
I walk along the wash to reduce the travel distance *and* avoid
traffic (noise, pollutants, risk) on the first portion of the trip.

No sidewalks on either side. Only one traffic control between the point
I pick up the roadway and where I leave it (at the *second* control).
I.e., folks get up a good head of speed (which is one reason the police
like to set speed traps, there!).

I won't walk on the paved shoulder. I won't even walk alongside the roadway
"on the grass" (if we HAD grass!).

Instead, I walk as far away from the roadway as is possible without
encountering a property fence or other barrier. And, FACING traffic
in the hope that *I* can watch for oncoming threats (recall, I am
WELL OFF the roadway and the road is straight for the majority of that
stretch).

On the return trip, I must walk the exact same path -- but now my back
is to traffic. I am intimately aware of the time it takes for a vehicle
to jump the curb and travel those 15 feet up onto the "grass" to clip
me from behind (a wee bit more than an ohnosecond).

[Crossing this roadway -- with the nearest pedestrian crossing being
more than half a mile out of my way -- is far more of a risk than
walking with my back to the threat!]

Paranoid? No. Just noting how other (pedestrians) have been killed in
the same general area, same general manner. Someone reaching to change
the "audio program" on their entertainment system (son of guy who did our
HVAC upgrade killed a mother and infant walking along roadside doing this),
or answering a text, or applying makeup, or...

[I figure *I* have a greater interest in my own survival than ANY of
these drivers, so *I* assume the responsibility for maximizing it!]

On 02/14/2016 04:40 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
laws in France and Poland.

But we're seperate countries. The USA is one country with different
laws in different parts of it. A right royal ****up.

No, we don't have royal ****ups; that's your specialty.

On 02/14/2016 05:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
E.g., we have a honking big "juicer" that we use for our citrus.
Definitely a labor saver -- in terms of elbow grease. *But*,
it needs to be cleaned after use -- as the pulp gets trapped in
the places that are *supposed* to trap it, you can't just drop it
in a dishwasher but, instead, need to clean it by hand. And, if you
don't want the stainless to spot, it must be dried by hand. Then,
reassembled and stored.

I'm amazed by the number of kitchen gadgets to do the tasks I accomplish
with a well worn Old Hickory French knife. They've dropped the pattern
but iirc it cost seven bucks.

On 2/14/2016 6:51 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 05:06 PM, Don Y wrote:
E.g., we have a honking big "juicer" that we use for our citrus.
Definitely a labor saver -- in terms of elbow grease. *But*,
it needs to be cleaned after use -- as the pulp gets trapped in
the places that are *supposed* to trap it, you can't just drop it
in a dishwasher but, instead, need to clean it by hand. And, if you
don't want the stainless to spot, it must be dried by hand. Then,
reassembled and stored.

I'm amazed by the number of kitchen gadgets to do the tasks I accomplish with a
well worn Old Hickory French knife. They've dropped the pattern but iirc it
cost seven bucks.

I think the most *effective* "kitchen gadget" that I've *found* (and,
coincidentally *purchased*) in the past ~30 years were "artichoke stands".

BTW, if you ever see an artichoke in bloom, you'd probably lament each
one that you *ate* (PRIOR to bloom!).

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 21:35:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:07:54 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:49:01 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:40:44 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:31:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:58:47 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:31:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:38:53 -0000, Tony Hwang wrote:

philo wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:



My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.




Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

What about tail lights? There are still many older cars/trucks on the
road yet.

An even stupider thing about daytime running lights is they don't turn the tail lights on, which means there are now loads of people driving around at night with only the front lights on, not realising they are unlit at the back. If you have no front lights on in the day, when it gets dark you notice.
You don't have lights on your speedo and other guages either, dummy.

That would be because I can see them without lights all over them, just like I can see other cars without lights all over them.

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

Not all roads are "devided coachways" like your motorways. There are
millions of miles of "2 lane blacktop" in the world - and a whole lot
of them are in North America (also lots of it in Europe and Africa -
as well as the rest of the world)
Without seeing approaching cars, pulling out to pass can be a very
deadly move.

Pulling out to pass when you can't be sure the other side is empty is ****ing stupid.
You are right - but you would think it was all clear because you can;t
see the car hiding in the dhadows with no lights.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at 50mph the other way.

Which causes more damage to your car and you?

Most definitely 2 vehicles meeting at 50kph. The same as 100kph into a
solid brick wall.

WRONG, they're precisely the same. If you think of it in terms of kinetic energy, there is twice as much energy dissipated in twice as many cars, so each car gets the same. If you think of it in terms of deceleration, in both cases each car decelerates from 50mph to 0mph in the time taken for its own crumple zone to crumple.

I will respectfully dissagree with you. You are more likely to punch
through the brick wall, diissipating the energy in the wall. Now a
solid concrete wall or earthen embankment might - that is MIGHT equal
the score.

The only reason they'd be different is if one vehicle was heavier than the other. Then the lighter vehicle would end up moving backwards after the collision, so experience more deceleration. The heavier vehicle would still keep moving in the same direction but slower, so experience less deceleration.

But that is NOT the issue. It is the amount of time you have to react.
You are just as dead when you hit at 100 as you are at 190. The secret
is in NOT being dead.. Closing speed is not as important as closing
TIME.

But if you stay on your own side of the road, you only have to worry about cars going the same way as you.

Then front end or head-on colissions wouldn't be an issue - and they
ARE.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 21:39:09 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 02:08:20 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/13/2016 8:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/13/2016 03:04 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You've got it backwards anyway: "Clare is a given name, the Medieval
English form of Clara.[1] The related name Clair was traditionally
considered male, especially when spelled without an 'e',[2] but Clare
and Claire are usually female."

As someone from a country where Evelyn Waugh married Evelyn Gardner and
it wasn't a same sex marriage, there might be some confusion with
British names

Clare can be a last name too.

I've heard that in French, but not in any normal country.

So only Scotland is a normal country? At any rate, the surname Clare
is NOT particularly French, although it's origins may trace back to
the Normans as indicated below (from wikipedia)

Clare is a surname of English origin. The name is also prevalent among
families of Irish origin, and there is a Clare County, Clare Island
and River Clare in Ireland which attests to a long historical
relationship with those places. The name was likely derived from the
titular de Clare first held by Richard fitz Gilbert, a Welsh lord from
a Norman family.
Or from surnamedb.com:

Last name: Clare


This most interesting and ancient surname, with its long association
with the British nobility, has three possible origins. It may be Olde
English and derive from the pre 8th century word 'cleare' which
translates as 'bright or clear' and as such was applied to various
rivers and a Manor in the county of Suffolk. A second possibility is
French, from a place called Clere in Normandy and first recorded in
the 1086 Domesday Book of England, whilst the third is baptismal from
the French 'Claire' or the Latin 'Clara' which themselves translate as
'bright of fair'. The original spelling forms were Clere, Clarae,
Clara, Clare, and Clair(e), however there is some confusion in that in
the early days the surnames were almost always proceeded by the French
preposition 'de', although by the 16th century its use had almost died
out. Irish nameholders also trace their heritage from the same
sources, Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, and better known as
'Strongbow' was the great leader of the Anglo-Norman Invasion of
Ireland in 1170. The primary source of the surname is probably the
Clare family of Clare in Suffolk, who received the Dukedom of Clarence
in 1362. Early examples of the surname include Bogo de Clare of Oxford
in the 1273 Kings Rolls, Goditha Clare of Kent in 1317, and Thomas
Clair of St Giles Cripplegate, London on January 19th 1664. The
'first' Clare/Clair(e) into the New American Colonies of King James 1
was probably Mr Clare, Master of the Ship 'Gods Gift' of London.
Unfortunately he was dead when he 'arrived' at Elizabeth City on or
about February 16th 1623. The first recorded spelling of the family
name is shown to be that of Richard de Clare, which was dated 1086,
The Domesday Book for County Suffolk, England, during the reign of
King William 1, 1066 - 1087. Surnames became necessary when
governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as
Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have
continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the
original spelling.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:04:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 03:29:09 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:47:05 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:



I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.

How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.

Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.

Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.

Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.

If the sepsis gets into the bload you could be dead in 12 hours.

If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.

Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.

Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.

It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.


You want to bet on that???

When I lived in NY, on a Sunday afternoon, I went with my girlfriend
to the apt. of a friend of hers, and his girlfriend had had a
toothache since Friday or Saturday, getting worse and worse. She
couldn't eat, could barely talk. I said, Why don't you go to the
dentist! They said, Monday. I said, Why don't you go now? It's
Sunday. I said, That's what 24 hour dentists are for.

I've put off visiting a dentist for toothache for 2 weeks, at which point I was getting fed up of taking so many painkillers. Two days is not a problem.

So NYC has over 2 million people, not counting the other boros (and
why count them?)

What is a boro?

Usually spelled borough. NYC has five of them.

NYC is better than everyone else? Got a big ego?

and in the yellow pages were about 20 24-hour
dentists. One of us called them one by one and learned that the first
seven didnt' do that anymore. Because they only do that until they
get enough patients to keep busy. No one wants to be bothered on
weekends or the middle of the night. But the 8th guy said come on
over. It took less than 30 minutes for her and her boyfriend to get
there, less than 30 minutes for the dentist to fix her. and she was
back in less than 90 minutes. And he didnt' charge any more than her
regular dentist would have charged, or maybe 10% more.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.

People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.

He does have a receptionist during office hours.

My vet has a 24/7 number, a pet could be in danger of dying. You don't die of toothache.

Most dentists have emergency numbers. This one did too. It's just
that HE was the only dentist reachable at the emergency number and he
wasnt' always reachable.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.
......

The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.

Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light?

Only that I don't know how to do it.

If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.

Change the wire to the fuse? Do you know how much effort that is?

Virtually none. Takes about as long as changing a wheel.

Of if you mean run a wire from the hot end of one fuse to the cold end of
the other fuse, that's a lot of effort too.

No, just change the hot end of the fuse to the other input. There's 2 inputs to a fusebox, one is only on with the ignition, the other comes straight from the battery. There will be unused fuse containers, use one of those if it's easier.

I'm looking for a way
to turn the lights on when the engine is off, just like all cars
worked until 1995. Not a whole project.

AFAIK all Vauxhalls do that anyway. Bloody annoying as you can more easily run the battery flat. Plus when I park the car for two minutes and don't turn the lights off, I've got a parked car dazzling people unnecessarily. I already removed the bleeping thing in anger that warns me I dared to open the door and left the lights on.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that,

To see how well the lights are working, to see if changing a bulb
really fixed it, etc.

Just turn on the ignition?

If you really think that is the right answer, why did you just spend
several lines explaining your much too difficult way to turn the
lights on without the engine.

Because I thought you wanted to do it regularly.

but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.

There are two sensors and I've forgotten which is which. I suspect
if your method, turning the switch off and on, works, it will work day
and night.

If I ever got a car that decided itself when it was dark, I'd disable it immediately, or at least adjust it to when I think it's dark.

I like it. And while I've thought about making the intermittent
wiper wipe less often, I've been fully satisfied with the light
sensor.

Is it anything like half the drivers who turn lights on when it's not even dark enough for me to be able to tell it's got darker? A camera could, but not my eyes.

If it did something wrong, I'd probably notice. I had a list of 30
things I didn't like about this 2000 Solara convertible, 15 because it
was a convertible and 15 because it was a Toyota. Previous cars have
never had more than 2 or 3 things wrong. So I'm not easy to please
but the photocell is fine afaict.

I've never moaned about more than 2 things with one car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.
LOL

My "random" sig generator seems to pay a lot of attention to the discussion in hand.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:40:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:08:02 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2016 5:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

No way, no day. For example, almost all of my firearms would be illegal
in New York state because of regulations pushed through by Cuomo. If the
people of NY want to put up with his liberal, gun-grabbing crap, that is
their prerogative. It will not fly in Montana.

No offense, but you could stick Great Britain out in the eastern part of
Montana where not too much lives except prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
This is a vast country and as you might gather from US politics, the
different regions have as much use for the others as some Scots have for
England.

Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Not that simple. What is a law in Connecticut has no bearing on
situations in Arizona. All states have laws requiring auto
registration, driver's license. Tax laws differ since the budgets
differ considerably.

Unless there is some physical difference, like one has a lack of water so you have laws about washing your car, then there is no need for differing laws.

Given your comment, the laws in your country should be the same as the
laws in France and Poland.

But we're seperate countries. The USA is one country with different laws in different parts of it. A right royal ****up.

Like the UK - English, Welsh, Irish,, Ulstermen, and Scotsmen - and
fully half of them can't stand the other half.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:41:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:38:29 -0000, Don Y wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I conclude
the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

And, by extension, all countries should have the same set of laws!

Extrapolating from that, all countries should speak the same language, have
the same currency, etc.

Right?

Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening courtesy of the internet.
So all you Scorsmen are going to be Englishmen? That'll go over real
good in Aberdeen.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:47:40 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:34:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I
conclude the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Uganda is a bit more backward than us. They should take ours.


Who's to make that decision??? On what basis???

Maybe we should use population as an indication? Would you like
instructions on the how/when/why of *bowing*?

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

Then it should be ignored.