THe GW Scan Is Still Alive, Amazingly
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Matthew Russotto on 23 Jul 2010 23:19 In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28ka44(a)4ax.com>, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > > >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G ><gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. >> >>they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? > >Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to >their particular level of poverty. > >>they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, >>computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they >>live longer. > >Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your >options don't include anything expensive. There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase lifespan. It's called a restricted calorie diet. And I mean really restricted, on the edge of starvation. And I'm sure you feel every second of that increased lifespan.... -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Dave Head on 23 Jul 2010 23:28 On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:19:13 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: >In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28ka44(a)4ax.com>, >Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >><gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. >>> >>>they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? >> >>Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to >>their particular level of poverty. >> >>>they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, >>>computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they >>>live longer. >> >>Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your >>options don't include anything expensive. > >There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase >lifespan. It's called a restricted calorie diet. And I mean really >restricted, on the edge of starvation. And I'm sure you feel every >second of that increased lifespan.... Yeah, I read about that - the mice were really, really thin and they lived a really, really long time, in mouse years.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 24 Jul 2010 00:48 On 7/23/2010 11:28 PM, Dave Head wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:19:13 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >> In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28ka44(a)4ax.com>, >> Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G >>> <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us. >>>> >>>> they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right? >>> >>> Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to >>> their particular level of poverty. >>> >>>> they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV, >>>> computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc. and they >>>> live longer. >>> >>> Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your >>> options don't include anything expensive. >> >> There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase >> lifespan. It's called a restricted calorie diet. And I mean really >> restricted, on the edge of starvation. And I'm sure you feel every >> second of that increased lifespan.... > > Yeah, I read about that - the mice were really, really thin and they > lived a really, really long time, in mouse years. Does this mean that *Liberals sending food to Africa* are the same as someone who supplies a smoker with free cigarettes? These Liberals are shortening the lives of all the Africans on caloric restrictive diets.
From: Otto Yamamoto on 24 Jul 2010 01:28 On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:55:47 +0000, Matthew Russotto wrote: > Excuse me if I don't want to go back 30 or 40 years in terms of standard > of living. Really? Roughly 40 years ago my parents were able to buy and maintain two automobiles and a house with only my father working. Try that today. Even with inflation, the average price of a house has increased about 45% in real(not inflationary) terms: the 2008 average home price of $292 600- 55 671 1971 dollars; the average 1971 new home price was $25 250. My parents purchased their house for about 19 000 in San Diego, CA. The average car price in 1971 was $3452, equivalent to $18 555 in 2009; the 2009 average of $27 598 is equal to $5337 in 1971-a 35% increase in real terms(the 2010 average cost is $28 400, but some of that is inflationary, and the real cost in constant dollars is probably less). Average 1971 income was $10 600, equivalent to 55 530 in 2009 dollars- 2008 median income was $50 303-adjusted for inflation in 2009 it drops to $50 102-$9564 in 1971-which represents a 10% drop in income over time. -- Otto Yamamoto
From: Larry G on 24 Jul 2010 06:45
On Jul 23, 10:30 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: > On 7/23/2010 10:16 PM, Larry G wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 4:28 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy- > > Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: > >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:17:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > >>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:26:06 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > >>>>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Jul 21, 10:17 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <22879a1c-b4c1-4d4e-816b-eaad9492e...(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>>> Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 9:07=A0pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 2010-07-20, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> I'd say that you need an agency like the EPA to make the tradeoffs > >>>>>>>>>> between what is necessary for society and for business and what is > >>>>>>>>>> safe enough.. or pollutable enough for society. > > >>>>>>>>> No single person or small group can possibly have enough information to > >>>>>>>>> do that properly even if they were pure of heart and absolutely perfect > >>>>>>>>> in their thinking. That means even if you can elminate all the problems > >>>>>>>>> of politics and corruption, have qualified people with no self interest, > >>>>>>>>> it still wouldn't work, because no small group can manage a society of > >>>>>>>>> 300 million people without causing all sorts of problems. > > >>>>>>>> and your alternative? > > >>>>>>> Decentralize decisionmaking. > > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> The problem with socialism is there's always > >>>>>>> someone with less ability and more need. > > >>>>>> that's the opposite of how Nukes get built in other countries though. > > >>>>> THe problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other > >>>>> people's money. And, of course, Europe is running out of that money. > >>>>> Greece, Spain, a whale of a lot of them are in trouble, and are > >>>>> probably going down. The Euro is said to be toast within a year. > >>>>> Socialism is a systemic monster that is going to consume them, > >>>>> economically. And after it does, people here that want to have the > >>>>> gov't doing absolutely everything will STILL not see it. > > >>>> so.. should govts help finance NUKES? > > >> Since when has the government supposed to be the venture capitalists? > > > that's my question. The only way NUKES are built is with Govt help on > > the capital costs. > > > That's why other countries build them and we don't - not because of > > opponents. > > > do you think we should do what the other countries do and help the > > NUKES get built? > > Sure.... help by cutting the Government regulations and hoops that > government requires energy companies to jump through. on you mean like we did with Wall Street and BP? |