Greg G. wrote:

I have another interesting question: (to me, anyway)
If everyone who currently pays for health care insurance - directly or
indirectly - were assured that for the same money they could cover
everyone in the country with the same or improved levels of health
care, would they still be opposed to a Canadian/Aussie type health
care system? Or is that simply too much socialism for their psyches
to absorb?


Greg G.

I wonder how many of the people who curse the "socialism" of various other
national health care systems even know how they actually work? Is a system
where people are free to choose their doctors etc. and where doctors work
for themselves or a hospital actually "socialist" just because payment comes
through govt.-administered insurance? Is the govt. requiring private
insurance companies to offer at least one policy meeting a minimum level of
coverage "socialism"? Or is "socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of
those who don't know how the rest of the world does it, they just know they
don't like whatever it is?

HeyBub wrote:

.... snip

This hash was settled in the late 18th Century with the publication of the
"Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. In it he postulated "The Invisble Hand"
which, simply, means that when everyone acts to improve their own personal
condition, the overall condition of society, humanity, improves.


... and even in non-free societies, this principle prevails, it just
doesn't redound to peoples' benefit. In a society being espoused here
where the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to
their need", the person with the ability is going to act in his own self
interest and not put forth any more effort than required to keep himself in
the good graces of the commissar and out of trouble. Why bother to pursue
excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see any resulting reward
mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either lacked the skill or
motivation to achieve? Same is true in a repressive society, people act in
self-preservation to keep themselves and their families safe. In both
these cases, these actions do not advance or elevate society, but they do
exhibit the fact that people always act to improve their own personal
condition.

The shining element of Smith's observation applied to a capitalist society
is that when those actions of self-interest allow people to reap the
benefits of their labors, all of society benefits. There will always be
people in society unable or unwilling to be successful and to some, bad
things just happen. However, that is where charitable acts and the
unforced generosity of those who are successful can come into play. In
some cases, an argument can be made for local government intervention to
alleviate such issues. Using the federal government however, to pluck the
fruits of peoples' labor to give to others, when taken to a certain level
will have the results identified above.



Some people just need to keep up.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"DGDevin" wrote:

Or is "socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of those who don't
know how the rest of the world does it, they just know they don't
like whatever it is?

Thought that was a prerequisite for membership in the flat earth
society.

Lew

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:43:25 -0800, the infamous "CW"
scrawled the following:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they only do
plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?


Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic
lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

Do you work over a forge, grind metal in enclosed spaces, or do you
just weld without a mask?


Machine shop. Grinding is one place where plastic lenses are superior. If
sparks from a grinder hit plastic lenses, it just bounces off. With glass,
when a spark hits the lens, it causes a, for lack of a better word, bump.
This bump is glass and cannot be removed. Guess how I know.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:15:43 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
toobusy@themoment scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:38:05 +0800, the infamous "diggerop"
toobusy@themoment scrawled the following:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
none of my business." I like it.

So, what state do you live in down there, other than "of denial"? You
a sandgroper, a Taswegian, a banana bender, or what?

--A fellow curmudgeon

Sandgroper. Born and bred. ...... and proud of it : )

A proud Sandgroper, eh? Will wonders never cease. gd&r


Ten foot tall and bulletproof, too : )

I shoulda known...


Say "Hullo" to Phully Laird for me if you get through Nannup. Damn,
it's been 7 years now...I wonder if he'll remember me...if the grog
ain't got him yet. He slid down from Perth a while back.

Well, he looks to be alive, anywho. Egad, tell him he needs a new web
guy. 256 color gifs, EEK! http://www.nannupfurnituregallery.com.au/



Nannup, - that would make a nice leisurely weekend bike run. Haven't been
down that way for many years. ....... got me thinking, summertime, not
too
hot yet ....... hmmm.
I'll be sure to let you know if I make the run.

Thanks. Where are you running from?



Perth. About a three hour trip ..... legally.

diggerop

"diggerop" wrote:

Perth. About a three hour trip ..... legally.

How does that boat handle when "The Doctor" comes up in the afternoon?

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote:

Considering that the power companies have displayed indifference to
protecting their systems from computer hackers (especially those
paid by foreign powers) I for one won't be surprised to see the
federal govt. take a more active interest in that industry.

Catch 60 Minutes last night?

The utility problem is known and under scrutiny by Congress at this
time.

Have "hackers paid by foreign powers" caused a significant power outage in
the US?

Looking at it online, the "60 minutes" episode is a bunch of typical modern
chicken-littleism. Lots of "the sky is falling" but no specifics to speak
of. "Be afraid, be afraid, demand that the goverment pass new laws and
impose new taxes".

They say for example that "The Chinese are inside the power grid". How did
they determine this? They show a diesel generator being destroyed in a test
and then talk about "the big generators can be destroyed"--I wanna see 'em
make black smoke come out of a steam turbine. And they outright lied--they
said that generators are no longer made in the US--that would be news to
General Electric.

Maybe there's a risk, maybe not, but that show didn't prove it, it just
mongered fear.

I stopped wasting my time on that show long ago.

Now, if someone could make black smoke come out of a reporter, _that_ I'd
_pay_ to watch.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"diggerop" wrote:

Perth. About a three hour trip ..... legally.

How does that boat handle when "The Doctor" comes up in the afternoon?

Lew





It's good up to about 25 knots. After that it becomes hard work. It's an old
hull, locally designed and built AFAIK, much heavier than most of similar
size, with a deep cast iron keel. No signs of blistering or osmosis.
Beautifully balanced and easy to sail single-handed. Sadly, it has no
character when compared to the previous yacht I had.
That was a 30' double-ender, the last of T Harrison Butler's designs
(C1918.) Launched in 1948. Full length keel, Jarrah from the waterline
down, Douglas Fir above the waterline. Masthead rig. 7 tons fully rigged.
Set up for single handed sailing, was a *very* good heavy weather boat.
Suffered badly from weather helm. Have had her out in a storm with gusts up
to 55 knots. Everyone else had run for port, only me and "The Leeuwin," ( a
three masted barquentine,) left out there - both of us under bare poles.
Most fun I'd had in years. : )
Took her out of the water after 3 years with the intention of refurbishing
her. The hull was basically sound, all but 2 ribs were ok, however, almost
everything else including the deck, cabin and mast needed repair and
replacement.
Had no idea at the time what an enormous task I'd set myself. What I thought
would take me a few months was in reality, two years minimum to do it
properly. I couldn't afford to let my contracting business stand idle for
that amount of time, so I sold her as is to someone that was retired and
felt they could complete it.
She was a lovely old thing. (I've put a couple of photo's up, before and
after shots.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32473839@N02


diggerop

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
But
if you want real distortion, try a pair of progressive lenses. OMG!
80% of them isn't even prescription lens, and the transitions left me
dizzy and sick to my stomach. I forced my opto's office managerette to
put me into bifocals and a pair of single vision readers. She wouldn't
even let me pay the extra for going bifocal for the readers, so I
never went back to that office again. I was mad as hell about the
whole thing. Varilux SUCKS!

Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then next
time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard now.
Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Is the glass because of the oversize requirement?

Actually it is my requirement.

For me, plastic is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I can't be bothered with a separate pair of glasses for sunglasses, thus
the photo gray.

Lew

Nor can I, but my plastic high index Transitions work well. Much lighter on
the face too.

CW wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
CW wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
Went to the site and it looked real good until I saw that they
only do plastic lenses. Leaves me out.

I'm curious--why does it leave you out?


Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

I stuck with glass lenses until quite recently, but I've used plastic
lenses the past few years and they've been fine. I clean the lenses
only under running water and so far scratches haven't been a
problem. I certainly like how much lighter glasses with plastic
lenses are.

Then I leave it to you to explain to my boss that I have to go wash my
glasses every five to ten minutes.

If you're getting that much crud on them that fast then I suspect that you
should be using some type of protective equipment.

J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:
In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

People need NASA to live? Do tell.

Actually, and you'll love this, it can be argued that we do - in the
sense that knowledge gained and research done by and through NASA has
affected our lives in ways that are far reaching and subtle. There
are a number of products on the market whose development was greatly
accelerated by and that are a direct by-product of NASA research. I'd
like to see us make advancements into space even if only to find more
planets to rape, pillage and dump our garbage on. We're running out of
room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
desirable situation. Do you believe the Hubble produces some
interesting results? Try a manned moon base just across the
transition zone on the dark side of the moon. The low gravity and lack
of atmosphere and suspended contaminants lends itself to a broad
variety of scientific research projects.

But here is another reason that should satisfy the chickenhawks. Since
the dawn of the nuclear age we have had reasonably plentiful supplies
of Helium-3. A light isotope of Helium not normally occurring in much
quantity on earth naturally, it is a by product of producing tritium.
He3 is used in a variety of medical, oil and gas detection, and low
temperature quantum physics research facilities at home and abroad.
Since 9/11 the supplies of He3 have been outstripped due to the
massive proliferation of neutron detectors used to detect the movement
of plutonium and other radioactive materials. The price has gone from
$100-$200 liter to $1300-$1600 per liter and sales overseas are on a
DOE/DHS approved basis - the majority of the 60,000 liters/annum being
reserved by the DOE for research projects which are funded by "certain
specific agencies of the US government." Researchers around the world
have invested massive capitol into building facilities, such as the
$1.3 billion J-PARC in Japan, which now cannot be supplied with the
needed He3. Even dilution refrigerator manufactures cannot obtain
sufficient supplies to continue production. It is also used during the
MRI process, to touch on the subject of another current thread.

Guess what we've found in substantially higher quantities compared to
the earth on and around the moon as a by-product of the sun's
radiation and solar winds? Helium-3. We'll catch them evil-doers now.

Of course, I'm dismissing transportation and injecting ample sarcasm,
but you get the idea...


The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for and
listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the government
paying for medical treatment. And schools, police, and fire departments are
not funded by the national government, nor are parks. I don't know what a
"community power consortium" is but there is certainly no Federally funded
power grid.

Things have changed quite a bit since the founders wrote the
Constitution. While I'm not going to even suggest that we usurp the
basic tenets of that document, this is not the same world that existed
in 1789. I believe they left sufficient wiggle room for adaptation. As
for what is not funded by the Federal government, I know quite a few
municipalities that would freak (and fold) if you told them Federal
funds were no longer available. The Federal government disburses money
to areas in need based upon needs and census. There are also numerous
Federal programs and grants which promote development of various civil
infrastructure needs.

Perhaps a confusing phrase, but community power consortiums are power
boards and utilities which are owned by local governments, and thus
the people who live there, and sell power, water, sewage, gas, and
garbage service to the residents in lieu of private power/utility/gas
companies. One such example would be from Newt Gingrich's launch pad
in extremely "conservative" Marietta, GA. The Marietta Board of Lights
and Water has been an extremely successful publicly owned municipal
purveyor of services since 1906. They buy power from the grid at
competitive rates and sell to citizens at below GA Power and Cobb EMC
rates. The service is better as well as the locals know every power
pole, water pipe and transformer in their city - and have to face
their irate neighbors if service lapses.

And I do believe that the TVA, among others, qualifies as a "Federally
funded power grid." They are, in fact, a prime link in the management
of the US power grid. The TVA is one of the largest producers of
electricity in the United States and acts as a regional power grid
reliability coordinator. Most of the nation's major hydropower systems
are federally managed. It's the coal, petrochemical and nuclear plants
which are primarily private.


Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And the government paying for it is going to alter those charts in what way?

Controlling costs, believe it or not. Removing the impetus for fraud
and unnecessary tests in order to pad bills, stuffing hospital beds to
maintain a given profit margin, purchasing drugs at competitive rates.
Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334. The final effect would be
remove thousands of outstretched hands that expect a cut of the cash
which flows through the health care system as it stands - which is the
root cause of much of the objections heard today. Everything else is
ginned up hysteria promoted by those who fear losing their cash cow.
Health care is not an option - you cannot simply decide to forgo a
purchase because you can't afford it as you can a new car or a
tablesaw - unless death is a valid option for you. It is a captive
market controlled by what is proving to be rank profiteers.

Additionally, acrimony aside, contrary to the private system a
government run system allows citizens to have input as to what and how
these things are run. Don't like the way things operate? You have the
option of voting the incompetents out of office. Ever try that with a
hospital, HMO, insurance company, or medical lab? Ha! **** and moan
too much and security will toss you're ass out in the street and the
insurance company will drop your coverage, if they haven't already
refused coverage for a given procedure. Currently, insurance companies
are refusing to cover people who have headaches, mild depression, and
other routine medical ailments. Commonplace operations that are so
pedestrian that they've been performed on kitchen tables in the 1800s
are now priced so high that victims have to sell their homes, enter
bankruptcy, leech from their children just to pay the bills. The bulk
of medical care is not MRIs and brain surgeries - they are common
ailments that demand no unusual skills or treatment techniques.
Removing a bullet used to cost a few chickens and a basket of apples -
drag that into your local hospital and see how far you get...

FWIW,

Greg G.

J. Clarke said:

Now, if someone could make black smoke come out of a reporter, _that_ I'd
_pay_ to watch.

Make that two tickets for admission.



Greg G.

On Nov 9, 7:02*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
CW wrote:

Because if it isn't glass, they are near useless to me. Last pair of
plastic lenses I had lasted about 6 hours.

You mean you get 6 hours?

You're better than me.

Geez, what do you folks do to the poor things? *My polycarbonate Wileys have
lasted me three years now on a motorcycle.

Maybe you're a better rider.

My around-the-house pair is scratched because I keep dropping them.
My work pair is pretty good because they generally stay on my nose.

Greg G. wrote:
J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:
In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways,
police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment
plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power
consortiums... The things people need to live.

People need NASA to live? Do tell.

Actually, and you'll love this, it can be argued that we do -

buncha bull**** snipped

So, since according to you we _need_ NASA to live, how is that in the
approximately 99,950 years that elapsed between the birth of the first human
and the founding of NASA, humanity did not become extinct due to lack of
NASA?

But here is another reason that should satisfy the chickenhawks. Since
the dawn of the nuclear age we have had reasonably plentiful supplies
of Helium-3.

buncha more bull**** snipped

So, what does it cost to make two tons a year of it by fusion or in particle
accelerators? What does it cost to mine 200 million tons a year of lunar
regolith?

Of course, I'm dismissing transportation and injecting ample sarcasm,
but you get the idea...

If the idea is that someone is a loon, then, yeah, I'm getting it. And how
is any of what you describe essential to life?

The founders carefully considered what the government should pay for
and listed it in the Constitution. There is nothing there about the
government paying for medical treatment. And schools, police, and
fire departments are not funded by the national government, nor are
parks. I don't know what a "community power consortium" is but
there is certainly no Federally funded power grid.

Things have changed quite a bit since the founders wrote the
Constitution.

However the specific provisions of the Constitution have not changed. If
you want to change it, change it. Ignoring it is a dangerous path.

While I'm not going to even suggest that we usurp the
basic tenets of that document, this is not the same world that existed
in 1789.

That's true. It was not ruled by whining do-gooders with their hands out
then.

I believe they left sufficient wiggle room for adaptation. As
for what is not funded by the Federal government, I know quite a few
municipalities that would freak (and fold) if you told them Federal
funds were no longer available.

Which municipalities would those be? And which funds?

The Federal government disburses money
to areas in need based upon needs and census. There are also numerous
Federal programs and grants which promote development of various civil
infrastructure needs.

Perhaps a confusing phrase, but community power consortiums are power
boards and utilities which are owned by local governments, and thus
the people who live there, and sell power, water, sewage, gas, and
garbage service to the residents in lieu of private power/utility/gas
companies. One such example would be from Newt Gingrich's launch pad
in extremely "conservative" Marietta, GA. The Marietta Board of Lights
and Water has been an extremely successful publicly owned municipal
purveyor of services since 1906. They buy power from the grid at
competitive rates and sell to citizens at below GA Power and Cobb EMC
rates. The service is better as well as the locals know every power
pole, water pipe and transformer in their city - and have to face
their irate neighbors if service lapses.

In other words they businesses that have the power of government.

And I do believe that the TVA, among others, qualifies as a "Federally
funded power grid." They are, in fact, a prime link in the management
of the US power grid. The TVA is one of the largest producers of
electricity in the United States and acts as a regional power grid
reliability coordinator. Most of the nation's major hydropower systems
are federally managed. It's the coal, petrochemical and nuclear plants
which are primarily private.

You can believe anything you want to but if TVA is Federally funded it's
news to them.

Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...20addition.pdf

And the government paying for it is going to alter those charts in
what way?

Controlling costs, believe it or not.

By what mechanism?

Removing the impetus for fraud
and unnecessary tests in order to pad bills, stuffing hospital beds to
maintain a given profit margin, purchasing drugs at competitive rates.

By what mechanism would the goverment operating as an insurer bring all this
about?

Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334.

That's nice. Would anybody have even bothered to develop it for that price?

The final effect would be
remove thousands of outstretched hands that expect a cut of the cash
which flows through the health care system as it stands - which is the
root cause of much of the objections heard today. Everything else is
ginned up hysteria promoted by those who fear losing their cash cow.
Health care is not an option - you cannot simply decide to forgo a
purchase because you can't afford it as you can a new car or a
tablesaw - unless death is a valid option for you. It is a captive
market controlled by what is proving to be rank profiteers.

Which "hands" would be removed by the government acting as an insurance
company?

Additionally, acrimony aside, contrary to the private system a
government run system allows citizens to have input as to what and how
these things are run.

When the Post Office stops bombarding me with junk mail get back to me.

Don't like the way things operate? You have the
option of voting the incompetents out of office.

And where, and when, exactly, has this resulted in improvement?

Ever try that with a
hospital, HMO, insurance company, or medical lab? Ha! **** and moan
too much and security will toss you're ass out in the street and the
insurance company will drop your coverage, if they haven't already
refused coverage for a given procedure.

So how will the government acting as insurer change any of this?

Currently, insurance companies
are refusing to cover people who have headaches, mild depression, and
other routine medical ailments. Commonplace operations that are so
pedestrian that they've been performed on kitchen tables in the 1800s
are now priced so high that victims have to sell their homes, enter
bankruptcy, leech from their children just to pay the bills. The bulk
of medical care is not MRIs and brain surgeries - they are common
ailments that demand no unusual skills or treatment techniques.
Removing a bullet used to cost a few chickens and a basket of apples -
drag that into your local hospital and see how far you get...

And the government acting as insurance company will change this how?


FWIW,

Which is less than I paid for it.

wrote:

My around-the-house pair is scratched because I keep dropping them.
My work pair is pretty good because they generally stay on my nose.

You could string them around your neck, like library matrons.

A better solution might be contacts. I wear ONE contact (+2.5). I can read
or work the computer (with one eye) and drive with two eyes. The single
contact doesn't interfere with distance depth perception, although depth
perception up close does suffer slightly.

I use AccuVue continuous wear lenses. Six cost about ~$30 at Sam's or Costco
and each one lasts about a month. It therefore costs about $60/year not to
have to fuss with glasses.

I guess you could experiment by breaking out one of the lenses on your
existing glasses and wearing the result for a few hours to get used to the
difference.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

My around-the-house pair is scratched because I keep dropping them.
My work pair is pretty good because they generally stay on my nose.

You could string them around your neck, like library matrons.

A better solution might be contacts. I wear ONE contact (+2.5). I can
read or work the computer (with one eye) and drive with two eyes. The
single contact doesn't interfere with distance depth perception,
although depth perception up close does suffer slightly.

I use AccuVue continuous wear lenses. Six cost about ~$30 at Sam's or
Costco and each one lasts about a month. It therefore costs about
$60/year not to have to fuss with glasses.

I guess you could experiment by breaking out one of the lenses on your
existing glasses and wearing the result for a few hours to get used
to the difference.

I agree that if you can wear contacts they're the way to go. For some
reason though I have a reaction to them--I can wear them for a couple of
weeks then something changes in my eyelids and they start sticking like
crazy, and that's so even for single-use disposables so it's not my
cleaning.

Greg G. wrote:

Slight correction.


We're running out of
room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
desirable situation.

If all the people on earth were stacked up like cordwood, they would fit in
a cubic mile. (1 person = 10 cu ft, 1 cubic mile = 147 billion cu ft = 15
billion people per cu mile - allowing for some wiggle room)

If all the people of earth were living in an area with the population
density of Hong Kong, they would fit in Mauritania. Population density of
Hong Kong 16,500/sq mile, 6 billion folks / 16,500 = 410,000 sq mi required.
Mauritania is about that size, as is Bolivia and Ethiopia. You could fit ten
times the earth's population in the United States.

Therefo

Virtually every resource is more abundant today than it was in 1980. See the
Simon-Ehrlich Wager (Ehrlich of "The Population Bomb" book, Julian Simon of
"The Ultimate Resource").

Conclusion: We are running out of neither room nor resources and that the
fullness of time has proven wrong virtually every prediction of the prophets
of doom (global cooling, Malthusian theory, oil, etc.).

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:48:52 +0800, "diggerop" toobusy@themoment
wrote:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/32473839@N02
diggerop

Noticed your IMG_3416 router jig there. Reminds me of a similar jig
except the two top pieces swivel and the jig is used for cutting
perfectly sized long dados in a board. The dado you have there appears
to be for cutting slots up to 4" wide. I was thinking about combining
the two jigs.

As long of course, I'm reading the image properly.

Doug Winterburn wrote:

However you want to mandate it, MRI machines are just a way companies
ensure some of their profit making practices bear fruit. Nothing else
and certainly not as a means so athletes stay healthy enough to
volunteer and change the landscape of charity. They're strictly there
to protect athletes and have extremely little trickle down effect to
volunteering.

You've been smoking something too much.


You sound as if you think a football team owning a MRI machine is
somehow taking away education for hundreds of pregnant mothers and
dooming them to dismal futures. Life isn't a zero sum game.

Of coure you're correct. The Communist and, to a lesser degree, the
socialist and liberal believe that the size of the pie is fixed and the size
of the slices needs to be adjusted, regularized, or re-cut so that everybody
has (roughly) the same amount.

The capitalist believes that the size of the pie can be increased and
everybody can have a bigger slice. Virtually all the "poor" in America have
a home, a car, a cell-phone, a TV, a microwave, electric lights, running
water, and a malt. The ratio of their slice to that of the well-off remains
the same, but in absolute terms their slice is WAY bigger than in places
where wealth is redistributed.

In sum, the liberal holds that wealth is generally constant and fairness
demands equality of it's distribution. The capitalist believes that wealth
can be created and, by so doing, lifts all boats.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then next
time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard now.
Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.

I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
used to using them?

HeyBub wrote:
Greg G. wrote:

Slight correction.

We're running out of
room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
desirable situation.

If all the people on earth were stacked up like cordwood, they would fit in
a cubic mile. (1 person = 10 cu ft, 1 cubic mile = 147 billion cu ft = 15
billion people per cu mile - allowing for some wiggle room)

If all the people of earth were living in an area with the population
density of Hong Kong, they would fit in Mauritania. Population density of
Hong Kong 16,500/sq mile, 6 billion folks / 16,500 = 410,000 sq mi required.
Mauritania is about that size, as is Bolivia and Ethiopia. You could fit ten
times the earth's population in the United States.

Therefo

Virtually every resource is more abundant today than it was in 1980. See the
Simon-Ehrlich Wager (Ehrlich of "The Population Bomb" book, Julian Simon of
"The Ultimate Resource").

Conclusion: We are running out of neither room nor resources and that the
fullness of time has proven wrong virtually every prediction of the prophets
of doom (global cooling, Malthusian theory, oil, etc.).



If anyone thinks the earth is overcrowded, they haven't driven through
Nevada or most other parts of the western US. As my contractor Dad used
to say, "Lot of room for improvement".

DGDevin wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

¹"Socialized" in this context means anything that puts people's
health ahead of the profits of health care corporations.

And if profit is minimized or dismissed, where shall the resources
for research and delivery come from? What will attract the brightest
minds to bleeding-edge medical research? Who's going to bother
capitalizing the estimated $1B it takes to get a new wonder drug to
market? Shall we all just become slaves to the state and let the
political oligarchs run everything?

Did I say we need to eliminate or even minimize profits? No? Then
why did you react as if I did? I believe in free enterprise, and
profit is a powerful motivation for the benefit of the public
*provided there is a savvy cop on the beat*. Unfortunately putting
profit ahead of all else can also lead insurance companies to deny
treatment to people who need it. Or it can lead doctors to set up
imaging clinics which bill insurance companies for needless x-rays or
MRIs etc., and we all pay for that. Drug companies--well anyone
paying attention has seen them conceal studies showing dangerous side
effects of their products and so on, all in the name of profit. No,
I'm not saying we should make medicine unprofitable, I'm saying we
need to guard against the mindset in which executive bonuses and
stock options and quarterly earnings are *all* that matters.

There will always be people who game the system, whatever the system might
be.

Have you ever heard of an American going to Canada or the UK for treatment?

Now, to be fair, there is a growing market in "medical tourism" where folks
who need heart-valve replacements, breast augmentation, or whatever, go to
places like Mexico or India for top-quality but low-priced procedures. Those
episodes are, however, driven by economics, not quality of care.

As for life-expectancy as a metric for health care efficacy, the U.S. has
conditions that effect life expectancy that many other nations do not, or at
least not in the same number:

* Gang warfare (France excepted)
* Executions of criminals (Iran excepted)
* Deaths due to Islamic Extremists (Spain, UK, Indonesia excepted)
* Vehicle accidents (UK, Australia, and other places that drive on the wrong
side excepted)
* Invaders of homes where the resident is armed to the teeth
* Many who just need killin'

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then next
time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard now.
Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.

I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
used to using them?

My first pair of glasses were progressive bifocals, about 10 years ago.
They took about a week to get used to, on my third pair now, newer
prescriptions each take a bit of time to get used to, but not that bad.
I never had *normal* glasses before that.

My prescription is mainly for close up work though, with just a very
minor distance correction, so your mileage may vary.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

DGDevin wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

The House of Representatives passed Health Care Reform tonight.

Hello Senate.

I wonder if the Senators know just how angry the majority of the
populace is over this insignificant little item. g

Hmm, I wonder if the local surplus shops have flak jackets...
It may get ugly in a hurry.

I wonder if the angry minority knows it is indeed a minority? I also
wonder why so many of them are so quick to think of violence as being
a legitimate response to the reality that election results have
consequences?

Uh, the "Tea Party" types are not violent.

This may come as a shock to progressives who, in their own lives, equate
anger with death and destruction (and that's perhaps why they oppose such
things as concealed handgun laws), but it is possible to be angry, irate, or
even mimic the antics of the third monkey on Noah's gangplank, without
coming to blows. Really.

DGDevin wrote:

I wonder how many of the people who curse the "socialism" of various
other national health care systems even know how they actually work?

Is a system where people are free to choose their doctors etc. and
where doctors work for themselves or a hospital actually "socialist"
just because payment comes through govt.-administered insurance?

Sure. Socialism is not defined by the actions of the consumer - it is
defined by control over the means of production or service rendered.

Is
the govt. requiring private insurance companies to offer at least one
policy meeting a minimum level of coverage "socialism"?

Um, not exactly. It IS over-regulation, though. An insurance policy is a
contract and the government should certainly have the means to enforce
contracts. But an agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller
should be, in the main, sacrosanct.

In your example, I have no problem with the government requiring an
insurance company to OFFER specific, minimum, coverage, but it doesn't stop
there. The government also wants to set the PRICE the insurance company can
charge - and that's the problem.

Anyone can get health coverage in the U.S. - they just can't get it at a
price they're willing to pay.


Or is
"socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of those who don't know
how the rest of the world does it, they just know they don't like
whatever it is?

That too.

HeyBub wrote:
Greg G. wrote:

Slight correction.


We're running out of
room and resources here, unless you consider every square mile of dry
land seething with humans to the exclusion of all else to be a
desirable situation.

If all the people on earth were stacked up like cordwood, they would
fit in a cubic mile. (1 person = 10 cu ft, 1 cubic mile = 147 billion
cu ft = 15 billion people per cu mile - allowing for some wiggle room)

If all the people of earth were living in an area with the population
density of Hong Kong, they would fit in Mauritania. Population
density of Hong Kong 16,500/sq mile, 6 billion folks / 16,500 =
410,000 sq mi required. Mauritania is about that size, as is Bolivia
and Ethiopia. You could fit ten times the earth's population in the
United States.

Therefo

Virtually every resource is more abundant today than it was in 1980.
See the Simon-Ehrlich Wager (Ehrlich of "The Population Bomb" book,
Julian Simon of "The Ultimate Resource").

Conclusion: We are running out of neither room nor resources and that
the fullness of time has proven wrong virtually every prediction of
the prophets of doom (global cooling, Malthusian theory, oil, etc.).

So how much land does it take to feed all these people? Or are you one
these damned fools who thinks that food appears by magic in grocery stores?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:48:52 +0800, "diggerop" toobusy@themoment
wrote:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/32473839@N02
diggerop

Noticed your IMG_3416 router jig there. Reminds me of a similar jig
except the two top pieces swivel and the jig is used for cutting
perfectly sized long dados in a board. The dado you have there appears
to be for cutting slots up to 4" wide. I was thinking about combining
the two jigs.

As long of course, I'm reading the image properly.

Yes it seems you are reading it properly. However, I'm not sure it could be
adapted to cut dado's in the long axis without sacrificing some inherent
accuracy that exists in it's present design and still remain adjustable.

I'll try and explain the rationale behind why it's built the way it is.
Firstly, I had a triangular shaped workpiece that presented problems in
clamping guide boards to it in the conventional fashion.
Because of the peculiarities of my split benchtop, I saw an opportunity to
create a jig that could be quickly clamped to the smaller section of the
benchtop, thereby giving a constant height for the router base, regardless
of where it was positioned. It is, for want of a better description, a fully
enclosed box with two sides removed. The workpiece is inserted through the
jig and the surface to be routed is also positioned co-planer with the
benchtop. It's relationship with the top of the jig is then not critical,
save for the need to ensure it is close enough for the router bit to reach
the required depth. The top of the jig and the surface to be routed are now
co-planer and will remain so, regardless of where the jig is subsequently
positioned.
The top is constructed with one side fixed, the other adjustable by means of
slotted guides running on the outside of the box, with a *very* snug fitment
and locked in place with 4 wingnuts. Within the range I have given it, the
faces remain parallel when adjusted. (I make a practice of completely
tightening one side before the other to reduce the chance of inducing a
small error through skewing.) Setup is always checked with a vernier.
Setting the top opening requires making an allowance for the difference
between the router guide bearing and the cutter width, in my case 7mm.
I set depth of cut by plunging the router until it just contacts the
workpiece, then adjusting the router depth stop to allow the required depth
of cut.
That setup will now cut identical dadoes anywhere along the length permitted
by the benchtop.Each movement to a new position only requires the two clamps
holding the jig to be released, jig moved to next cut line and clamped to
the benchtop again.
For subsequent pieces with the same dado width, it only requires re-setting
of the plunge depth for the first cut.
Accuracy of the construction of the jig is the most critical part, -
everything needs to be perfectly square. I got lucky and the first attempt
came out ok. I had built it for a one-off purpose, but it works so well,
I'll try and refine it a little, firstly by affixing some harder material to
the router bearing guide faces. It would also work with a plain router bit
and remain adjustable by affixing a guide board to to each top piece.
If the basic setup rules are followed, most potential errors are eliminated.
Setup time is actually quite quick, a lot less than it will have taken you
to read this long-winded discourse. : )

I've added another photo to the set, - different piece of wood and a better
view of the entire setup.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32473839@N02

I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with. : )

diggerop

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Nor can I, but my plastic high index Transitions work well. Much
lighter on the face too.

Weight doesn't seem to be a problem for me.

Lew

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Maybe there's a risk, maybe not, but that show didn't prove it, it
just
mongered fear.

I stopped wasting my time on that show long ago.

Now, if someone could make black smoke come out of a reporter,
_that_ I'd
_pay_ to watch.

Interesting.

You state, "I stopped wasting my time on that show long ago.", but you
seem to be knowledgeable about the piece.

Strange.

Lew

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:25:41 -0500, upscale wrote:

You've been smoking something too much.

Naah - he's just one of Tim's acolytes.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:56:20 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Why
bother to pursue excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see
any resulting reward mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either
lacked the skill or motivation to achieve?

So money is the only motivator?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

wrote:

I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
used to using them?

Depends on the person.

My dad had a tough time, myself, not so much.

BTW, the length of your arms will have a dramatic impact on your
decision to accept bifocals.

Lew

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:54:24 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been cleaning my plastic-lensed eyeglasses with my t-shirt every
hour for 40 years now and I've never had much scratching. After 2
years, it's visible when you look for it, but not when you look through
them. Occasional buffing with RainX helps. I haven't tried the swirl
remover Maguire puts out, but I'll bet it'd work, too. Give it a try.

I've been breathing on mine and wiping them with a Kleenex for about the
same number of years. If I don't get the scratch resistant coating they
do scratch, but still last for 2-4 years. If I do get the coating, the
frames usually wear out before the lenses.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:31:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program
does is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon
the government for a very basic need.

But we ARE the government. Or don't you vote?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"diggerop" wrote:

It's good up to about 25 knots. After that it becomes hard work.
It's an old hull, locally designed and built AFAIK, much heavier
than most of similar size, with a deep cast iron keel. No signs of
blistering or osmosis. Beautifully balanced and easy to sail
single-handed. Sadly, it has no character when compared to the
previous yacht I had.
That was a 30' double-ender, the last of T Harrison Butler's designs
(C1918.) Launched in 1948. Full length keel, Jarrah from the
waterline down, Douglas Fir above the waterline. Masthead rig. 7
tons fully rigged. Set up for single handed sailing, was a *very*
good heavy weather boat. Suffered badly from weather helm. Have had
her out in a storm with gusts up to 55 knots. Everyone else had run
for port, only me and "The Leeuwin," ( a three masted barquentine,)
left out there - both of us under bare poles.
Most fun I'd had in years. : )
Took her out of the water after 3 years with the intention of
refurbishing her. The hull was basically sound, all but 2 ribs were
ok, however, almost everything else including the deck, cabin and
mast needed repair and replacement.
Had no idea at the time what an enormous task I'd set myself. What I
thought would take me a few months was in reality, two years minimum
to do it properly. I couldn't afford to let my contracting business
stand idle for that amount of time, so I sold her as is to someone
that was retired and felt they could complete it.
She was a lovely old thing. (I've put a couple of photo's up, before
and after shots.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32473839@N02

Ah the joys of owning a "woodie".

I'm a "string & snot" kind of guy.

I could have never built mine any other way.

Lew

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:28:16 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


wrote:

I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
used to using them?

BTW, the length of your arms will have a dramatic impact on your
decision to accept bifocals.

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:28:16 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

wrote:

I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
used to using them?

BTW, the length of your arms will have a dramatic impact on your
decision to accept bifocals.

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

Finding the proper focus point for reading various sizes of type, or
doing really fine close up work.

I'm 6'5" so arm length isn't an issue.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then
next
time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to standard
now.
Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.

I'm still resisting going to bifocals. Did it take you long to get
used to using them?


I too, have avoided bifocals. I cannot see standard print without reading
glasses but my normal vision is still just good enough to cope. My wife has
bifocals and thinks they are great. She also tried transitional trifocals,
(at least I think that's what they are called, ) which have a graduated
seamless transition in focal length. She tried adapting for about 3 months
then went back to the bifocals.

diggerop

wrote:

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

When you can no longer hold the paper far enough from your face to
read it, you get bifocals, then ultimately trifocals.

Lew