Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #360712 > unrolled thread

Accessing books and articles

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 09:06 -0500
    Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 09:16 -0500
    Re: Accessing books and articles Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 07:23 -0700
      Re: Accessing books and articles "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-08-17 20:10 +0200
    Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 16:33 +0200
      Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 10:06 -0500
        Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:14 +0200
        Re: Accessing books and articles HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 11:26 -0400
    Re: Accessing books and articles gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-14 13:41 -0500
    Re: Accessing books and articles benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:01 -0400
      Re: Accessing books and articles John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 17:25 -0700
      Re: Accessing books and articles HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 08:06 -0400
    Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 19:13 +0000
      Re: Accessing books and articles kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-14 15:43 -0400
        Re: Accessing books and articles Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-14 19:51 +0000
          Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:22 -0500
            Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 20:39 +0000
              Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 16:09 -0500
                Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 21:14 +0000
                  Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 16:33 -0500
          Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 10:43 +0200
        Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:00 -0500
          Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 20:30 +0000
            Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:46 -0500
              Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-15 02:04 +0000
                Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 21:37 -0500
                Re: Accessing books and articles kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-14 22:40 -0400
                  Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-15 03:15 +0000
                    Re: Accessing books and articles kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-14 23:57 -0400
                      Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:13 +0200
                        Re: Accessing books and articles kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-15 10:38 -0400
                          Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 16:59 +0200
                    Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:05 +0200
                    Re: Accessing books and articles John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-15 17:49 -0700
                Re: Accessing books and articles John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 20:05 -0700
                Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 11:51 +0200
            Re: Accessing books and articles kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-14 18:38 -0400
              Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:11 -0500
        Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 20:05 +0000
          Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:10 -0500
      Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 14:51 -0500
        Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:07 -0500
        Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-14 20:19 +0000
          Re: Accessing books and articles Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:37 -0500
            Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:34 +0200
        Re: Accessing books and articles Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-17 01:05 +0200
      Re: Accessing books and articles Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:56 -0500
        Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-15 00:53 +0000
          Re: Accessing books and articles John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-14 18:43 -0700
        Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:41 +0200
        Re: Should we jail librarians ? ! benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 03:08 -0400
          Re: Should we jail librarians ? ! noel <deletethis@invalin.lan> - 2015-08-18 08:40 +1000
            Re: Should we jail librarians ? ! benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-17 19:25 -0400
            Re: Should we jail librarians ? ! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-18 08:48 -0400
              Re: Should we jail librarians ? ! noel <deletethis@invalin.lan> - 2015-08-19 10:04 +1000
                Re: Should we jail librarians ? ! "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-19 12:54 -0400
      Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 10:39 +0200
    Re: Accessing books and articles Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 08:20 -0700
      Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:19 +0200
        Re: Accessing books and articles kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-15 12:37 -0400
          Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:45 +0200
    Re: Accessing books and articles Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 12:04 +0200
      Re: Accessing books and articles Eteocles Panagakos <eteoclespd@prospernetwork.org> - 2015-08-16 11:44 +0000
        Re: Accessing books and articles Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-16 15:30 +0200
    Re: Accessing books and articles "T.M. Sommers" <tmsommers2@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:07 -0400
      Re: Accessing books and articles Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 17:53 +0200
      Re: Accessing books and articles Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-08-17 00:44 +0200
    Re: Accessing books and articles Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-08-16 18:27 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#360848

Dne 14/08/2015 v 21:51 Eteocles Panagakos napsal(a):
> kefischer wrote:
> 
>>           You are dreaming the impossible dream, because
>> it costs money to produce, collect and manage information,
>> and nobody is able to do it for nothing (if they like to eat on the
>> money they earn).
> 
> You are perpetuating a lie here. It cannot possibly costs money, but 
> mostly some work. (and/or eventually some heat)
> 
Well, money spent to produce, collect and manage information
are at order of billion dollars
during process of invention and testing
of a new drug in pharmaceutical industry.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360773

On 8/14/2015 2:43 PM, kefischer wrote:
>            Until the drive gets erased or fails.
> Sixty years ago, discounts were the fad,
> now dummies and leftist liberals want
> everything free, the fad now is freebies,
> and some are worth less than the cost.

Anybody can browse through the free part of the internet.

It's like looking for food and household goods in a dumpster. It's free, 
and sometimes you find usable things, but you're going to have to 
tolerate the smell and fester of a lot of garbage to find it. And then 
the problem is that the less industrious scroungers will get tired of 
sorting through trash and start swallowing stuff that is rotten or take 
home appliances that are broken and will burn the house down. But after 
eating enough of the sewage, they start to think it's just as good as 
quality stuff and pretend they're not swallowing garbage.

That's what happens when you rely solely on the free part of the internet.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360783

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:00:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> Anybody can browse through the free part of the internet.
> 
> It's like looking for food and household goods in a dumpster.
>

That is the most ridiculous, asinine, misplaced, and egregiously
erroneous analogy that I have ever encountered.

You should be publicly lashed and pilloried for making such a
statement. 

The only proper rebuttal would be of the rubber hose variety.

But, in case you haven't noticed, Internet piracy, which is rampant
and growing, is making a mockery of the antiquated copyright
establishments of our civilization.  Piracy is the voice of the
people in response to the changing times and to the conflict with
the obsolete methods and institutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360791

On 8/14/2015 3:30 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:00:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> Anybody can browse through the free part of the internet.
>>
>> It's like looking for food and household goods in a dumpster.
>>
>
> That is the most ridiculous, asinine, misplaced, and egregiously
> erroneous analogy that I have ever encountered.
>
> You should be publicly lashed and pilloried for making such a
> statement.
>
> The only proper rebuttal would be of the rubber hose variety.
>
> But, in case you haven't noticed, Internet piracy, which is rampant
> and growing, is making a mockery of the antiquated copyright
> establishments of our civilization.  Piracy is the voice of the
> people in response to the changing times and to the conflict with
> the obsolete methods and institutions.
>

LOL, and unlicensed medical quacks (medical piracy, if you like) are 
rampant and growing, and is making a mockery of the antiquated licensure 
establishments of our civilization. Medical quackery is the voice of the 
people in response to changing times and to the conflict with the 
obsolete methods and institutions.

I'm just curious now. Are you an independent contractor, or do you work 
for a company, or are you retired (voluntary or not)?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360815

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:52 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> 
> and unlicensed medical quacks (medical piracy, if you like) are 
> rampant and growing, and is making a mockery of the antiquated licensure 
> establishments of our civilization.
>

That's another analogy that does not fit.

The tradition of professional licensure is intended to protect the
public from incompetence.

But in an age of free information, even that is coming under attack.

Physicians, like other professional groups, are a continuation of the
ancient guild system of protectionism.  The guilds controlled admittance
to a particular practice and they controlled the knowledge, or information,
used by that practice.  This situation still exists today as doctors,
lawyers, engineers, and other professionals are all controlled and circumscribed
through licensure, certification, chartering, etc. and through their own
organized exclusions.

But, in an age of free and uninhibited information, the general public are
no longer the ignorant dim-wits they were made to be through centuries
of feudalism and Christian-inspired social repression.  Licensure is no
longer an essential requirement in protecting the populace.

I have access to the same quality of information as any physician or engineer
and, as a result, I am no longer quite as dependent on the services
of professionals.

Legally, however, it is a different matter.  I still cannot "prescribe"
drugs for myself, although some states within the USA have made available
to the public certain drugs, such as antibiotics, that were formerly
subject to control.  In the future, we  should see more of this kind
of regulatory relaxation.

Nurse practitioners, which are health care professionals that only hold
a  baccalaureate degree, are now also beginning to assume some of the
routine and "simple" functions that were formerly done only by fully
licensed physicians.  Nurse practitioners are now allowed to treat minor
illnesses and prescribe a limited range of drugs.  i see no reason why
any educated person should be excluded from performing these same functions.

You forget that that the rigid social strata of the past was only recently
eliminated, and then only in a formal sense.  The spirit of aristocrats and
privileged classes still lingers and informs the attitudes and opinions
of many today.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360818

On 8/14/2015 9:04 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:52 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>>
>> and unlicensed medical quacks (medical piracy, if you like) are
>> rampant and growing, and is making a mockery of the antiquated licensure
>> establishments of our civilization.
>>
>
> That's another analogy that does not fit.
>
> The tradition of professional licensure is intended to protect the
> public from incompetence.

Exactly!

>
> But in an age of free information, even that is coming under attack.

Well, in that case, we don't have anything to worry about from the 
quacks, do we? After all, the information is free!

>
> Physicians, like other professional groups, are a continuation of the
> ancient guild system of protectionism.  The guilds controlled admittance
> to a particular practice and they controlled the knowledge, or information,
> used by that practice.  This situation still exists today as doctors,
> lawyers, engineers, and other professionals are all controlled and circumscribed
> through licensure, certification, chartering, etc. and through their own
> organized exclusions.

Yup. That is exactly what it is for. It is establishing that certain 
professions are reserved for those with proven expertise, and the guild 
system is the certification process for expertise and protection from 
incompetence.

>
> But, in an age of free and uninhibited information, the general public are
> no longer the ignorant dim-wits they were made to be through centuries
> of feudalism and Christian-inspired social repression.  Licensure is no
> longer an essential requirement in protecting the populace.
>
> I have access to the same quality of information as any physician or engineer
> and, as a result, I am no longer quite as dependent on the services
> of professionals.

Then you are just as able to provide medical treatment to your family in 
the event of acute appendicitis or guillain-barré syndrome. First step, 
those YouTube videos on anesthesiology! Blood chemistry tests right 
after that! Do-it-yourselfers, you have nothing to lose but your lives!

>
> Legally, however, it is a different matter.  I still cannot "prescribe"
> drugs for myself, although some states within the USA have made available
> to the public certain drugs, such as antibiotics, that were formerly
> subject to control.  In the future, we  should see more of this kind
> of regulatory relaxation.
>
> Nurse practitioners, which are health care professionals that only hold
> a  baccalaureate degree, are now also beginning to assume some of the
> routine and "simple" functions that were formerly done only by fully
> licensed physicians.  Nurse practitioners are now allowed to treat minor
> illnesses and prescribe a limited range of drugs.  i see no reason why
> any educated person should be excluded from performing these same functions.

I don't believe educated people are excluded from providing those 
"simple functions".

>
> You forget that that the rigid social strata of the past was only recently
> eliminated, and then only in a formal sense.  The spirit of aristocrats and
> privileged classes still lingers and informs the attitudes and opinions
> of many today.
>

Expertise is not to be equated with aristocracy or privileged classes.

If you are for the forsaking of the recognition of expertise in general, 
and declaring that expertise is obtainable by anyone in any area in a 
short time, then by golly you go for it. Demonstrate your life 
principles by architecting a multistory multi-family dwelling, being 
able to perform a root canal, engineering an MRI facility, and 
developing a new drug for treatment of psoriasis, all in the next year. 
That's only four projects, and heck, you know that the guilds of 
expertise are nothing but artificial barriers meant to exclude the 
common man from his independence!


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360819

On 15 Aug 2015 02:04:55 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:52 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> 
>> and unlicensed medical quacks (medical piracy, if you like) are 
>> rampant and growing, and is making a mockery of the antiquated licensure 
>> establishments of our civilization.
>>
>
>That's another analogy that does not fit.
>
>The tradition of professional licensure is intended to protect the
>public from incompetence.
>
>But in an age of free information, even that is coming under attack.
>
>Physicians, like other professional groups, are a continuation of the
>ancient guild system of protectionism.  The guilds controlled admittance
>to a particular practice and they controlled the knowledge, or information,
>used by that practice.  This situation still exists today as doctors,
>lawyers, engineers, and other professionals are all controlled and circumscribed
>through licensure, certification, chartering, etc. and through their own
>organized exclusions.
>
>But, in an age of free and uninhibited information, the general public are
>no longer the ignorant dim-wits they were made to be through centuries
>of feudalism and Christian-inspired social repression.  Licensure is no
>longer an essential requirement in protecting the populace.
>
>I have access to the same quality of information as any physician or engineer
>and, as a result, I am no longer quite as dependent on the services
>of professionals.
>
>Legally, however, it is a different matter.  I still cannot "prescribe"
>drugs for myself, although some states within the USA have made available
>to the public certain drugs, such as antibiotics, that were formerly
>subject to control.  In the future, we  should see more of this kind
>of regulatory relaxation.
>
>Nurse practitioners, which are health care professionals that only hold
>a  baccalaureate degree, are now also beginning to assume some of the
>routine and "simple" functions that were formerly done only by fully
>licensed physicians.  Nurse practitioners are now allowed to treat minor
>illnesses and prescribe a limited range of drugs.  i see no reason why
>any educated person should be excluded from performing these same functions.

       You don't see a lot of things because you
are a leftist liberal that can't shake off the envy
of the rewards of personal effort and outstanding
ability.


>You forget that that the rigid social strata of the past was only recently
>eliminated, and then only in a formal sense.  The spirit of aristocrats and
>privileged classes still lingers and informs the attitudes and opinions
>of many today.

        What communist organ do you publish in?
What next, claiming that the slowest runner is
just as deserving of the gold medal as the fastest?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360824

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:40:03 -0400, kefischer wrote:

> 
>        You don't see a lot of things because you
> are a leftist liberal 
>

LOL!  I am the antithesis of the leftist liberal!  In fact, I believe
that all leftist liberals should be exterminated.

But unlike the hypocrite liberal, who talks out of both sides of
his stupid, idiotic mouth, I strongly advocate the freedom of humans.

Democracy is rule by the people, regardless of what the people may
choose to do.

The liberal however, pontificates a THEOCRACY.  The liberal wants
the human to conform to an unnatural ideology.  The liberal does
not accept true human motivation or desire.  The liberal is a blinded
and emasculated jackass.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360828

On 15 Aug 2015 03:15:36 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:40:03 -0400, kefischer wrote:
>
>> 
>>        You don't see a lot of things because you
>> are a leftist liberal 
>>
>
>LOL!  I am the antithesis of the leftist liberal!  In fact, I believe
>that all leftist liberals should be exterminated.
>
>But unlike the hypocrite liberal, who talks out of both sides of
>his stupid, idiotic mouth, I strongly advocate the freedom of humans.
>
>Democracy is rule by the people, regardless of what the people may
>choose to do.

        I don't know where you live, but I live
in a republic, where liberty and freedom
means "NO" ruling, with just laws to
protect safety and those freedoms.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/types-of-governments.html


>The liberal however, pontificates a THEOCRACY.  The liberal wants
>the human to conform to an unnatural ideology.  The liberal does
>not accept true human motivation or desire.  The liberal is a blinded
>and emasculated jackass.

       Fine, now post in an appropriate newsgroup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360857

Dne 15/08/2015 v 05:57 kefischer napsal(a):
> On 15 Aug 2015 03:15:36 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>         I don't know where you live, but I live
> in a republic, where liberty and freedom
> means "NO" ruling, with just laws to
> protect safety and those freedoms.
> 

What about ruling
to protect freedom against freedom ?

---

I know several recent visitors of the US from Europe,
thinking US is a country of freedom,
who were shocked how much US government interferes.

By applying sometimes funny, sometimes crazy,
sometime ridiculous rules of behaviour.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360876

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:13:47 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dne 15/08/2015 v 05:57 kefischer napsal(a):
>> On 15 Aug 2015 03:15:36 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>         I don't know where you live, but I live
>> in a republic, where liberty and freedom
>> means "NO" ruling, with just laws to
>> protect safety and those freedoms.
>> 
>
>What about ruling
>to protect freedom against freedom ?

         Actions that affect other people is not
freedom, that is what you are getting at.

         And freedom also means free to not
get a driver's license and NOT drive a car.


>---
>
>I know several recent visitors of the US from Europe,
>thinking US is a country of freedom,
>who were shocked how much US government interferes.

        That is the case now, unfortunately,
for two reasons, world terrorist activity,
and over-regulation.


>By applying sometimes funny, sometimes crazy,
>sometime ridiculous rules of behaviour.

        

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360880

Dne 15/08/2015 v 16:38 kefischer napsal(a):
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 12:13:47 +0200, Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dne 15/08/2015 v 05:57 kefischer napsal(a):
>>> On 15 Aug 2015 03:15:36 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>         I don't know where you live, but I live
>>> in a republic, where liberty and freedom
>>> means "NO" ruling, with just laws to
>>> protect safety and those freedoms.
>>>
>>
>> What about ruling
>> to protect freedom against freedom ?
> 
>          Actions that affect other people is not
> freedom, that is what you are getting at.

Near everything you do
may affect other people by some way.

I would illustrate the freedom of mutually affecting people
like a small space,
packed by bloated up balloons
that are in touch.

Healthy democracy keeps them bloated
by about the same pressure.
So all of them are rather deformed,
but they share the level of deformation.
> 
>          And freedom also means free to not
> get a driver's license and NOT drive a car.
> 

Sure.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360854

Dne 15/08/2015 v 05:15 Fabian Russell napsal(a):
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:40:03 -0400, kefischer wrote:
> 
>>
>>        You don't see a lot of things because you
>> are a leftist liberal 
>>
> 
> LOL!  I am the antithesis of the leftist liberal!  In fact, I believe
> that all leftist liberals should be exterminated.

This was here once in 30s...
One had even more choices,
to exterminate communists or capitalists.

You promote extreme ideologies, violating democracy.

Freedom of one ends, where freedom of others begin.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360941

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 10:15:30 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 22:40:03 -0400, kefischer wrote:
> 
> > 
> >        You don't see a lot of things because you
> > are a leftist liberal 
> >
> 
> LOL!  I am the antithesis of the leftist liberal!  In fact, I believe
> that all leftist liberals should be exterminated.
> 
> But unlike the hypocrite liberal, who talks out of both sides of
> his stupid, idiotic mouth, I strongly advocate the freedom of humans.
> 
> Democracy is rule by the people, regardless of what the people may
> choose to do.
> 
> The liberal however, pontificates a THEOCRACY.  The liberal wants
> the human to conform to an unnatural ideology.  The liberal does
> not accept true human motivation or desire.  The liberal is a blinded
> and emasculated jackass.

Mankind must produce laws so that no single individual or group gets out of line.  Billionaires are only good as long as they push the envelope of innovation.  This is why there is no problem for the most part because the most capable humans are always in control.  The word liberal does not signify much unless it is supported by meaning. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360823

On Friday, August 14, 2015 at 9:05:29 PM UTC-5, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:46:52 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > and unlicensed medical quacks (medical piracy, if you like) are 
> > rampant and growing, and is making a mockery of the antiquated licensure 
> > establishments of our civilization.
> >
> 
> That's another analogy that does not fit.
> 
> The tradition of professional licensure is intended to protect the
> public from incompetence.
> 
> But in an age of free information, even that is coming under attack.
> 
> Physicians, like other professional groups, are a continuation of the
> ancient guild system of protectionism.  The guilds controlled admittance
> to a particular practice and they controlled the knowledge, or information,
> used by that practice.  This situation still exists today as doctors,
> lawyers, engineers, and other professionals are all controlled and circumscribed
> through licensure, certification, chartering, etc. and through their own
> organized exclusions.
> 
> But, in an age of free and uninhibited information, the general public are
> no longer the ignorant dim-wits they were made to be through centuries
> of feudalism and Christian-inspired social repression.  Licensure is no
> longer an essential requirement in protecting the populace.
> 
> I have access to the same quality of information as any physician or engineer
> and, as a result, I am no longer quite as dependent on the services
> of professionals.
> 
> Legally, however, it is a different matter.  I still cannot "prescribe"
> drugs for myself, although some states within the USA have made available
> to the public certain drugs, such as antibiotics, that were formerly
> subject to control.  In the future, we  should see more of this kind
> of regulatory relaxation.
> 
> Nurse practitioners, which are health care professionals that only hold
> a  baccalaureate degree, are now also beginning to assume some of the
> routine and "simple" functions that were formerly done only by fully
> licensed physicians.  Nurse practitioners are now allowed to treat minor
> illnesses and prescribe a limited range of drugs.  i see no reason why
> any educated person should be excluded from performing these same functions.
> 
> You forget that that the rigid social strata of the past was only recently
> eliminated, and then only in a formal sense.  The spirit of aristocrats and
> privileged classes still lingers and informs the attitudes and opinions
> of many today.

Humans are still animals- so have to figure the sane verses rabid ones.  A biologist who makes an honest living by measuring our well water purity is probably the best job you could have sometimes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360853

Dne 15/08/2015 v 04:04 Fabian Russell napsal(a):

> 
> Physicians, like other professional groups, are a continuation of the
> ancient guild system of protectionism.  The guilds controlled admittance
> to a particular practice and they controlled the knowledge, or information,
> used by that practice.  This situation still exists today as doctors,
> lawyers, engineers, and other professionals are all controlled and circumscribed
> through licensure, certification, chartering, etc. and through their own
> organized exclusions.
> 
> But, in an age of free and uninhibited information, the general public are
> no longer the ignorant dim-wits they were made to be through centuries
> of feudalism and Christian-inspired social repression.  Licensure is no
> longer an essential requirement in protecting the populace.
> 
> I have access to the same quality of information as any physician or engineer
> and, as a result, I am no longer quite as dependent on the services
> of professionals.
> 

2 doing the same are not doing the same,
even if they have the same information.

1 recipe, 10 people, 10 different products.

If one does it for himself, well, it his decision.
But God save us if doing for others some activity.

Replacing of reasonable control and check
by chaos and anarchy is for no good.

Protective feature of repression is unwisely ignored.

It is easier to catch the spoiling at the source,
than at the target, no matter if it means
emissions or low quality food or self-established specialists.

We gained much of experience in that in our country
after fall of communism.

If example of food producing is taken, there were for many basic food
and raw  mandatory technical papers, concerning quality.
After communism fell most of papers are not mandatory any more.
Many food producers are cheating like crazy, as, aside of health
hazards, there are no boundaries. Like meat product not containing meat,
cheese not being a cheese, raw of low quality etc etc.

In mediaeval era of Central Europe,
convinced producers of intentionally low quality good or service
were soaked in tar, covered by feathers and thrown into a river.
( some of these customs continued in wild west, at least in westerns )
I miss to see this medieval punishment feature...


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360801

On 14 Aug 2015 20:30:55 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:00:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> 
>> Anybody can browse through the free part of the internet.
>> 
>> It's like looking for food and household goods in a dumpster.
>>
>
>That is the most ridiculous, asinine, misplaced, and egregiously
>erroneous analogy that I have ever encountered.
>
>You should be publicly lashed and pilloried for making such a
>statement. 
>
>The only proper rebuttal would be of the rubber hose variety.
>
>But, in case you haven't noticed, Internet piracy, which is rampant
>and growing, is making a mockery of the antiquated copyright
>establishments of our civilization.  Piracy is the voice of the
>people in response to the changing times and to the conflict with
>the obsolete methods and institutions.

        Why are you holding back on the underlying
agenda you are touting, is it total socialism, or the
utopian ignorance of communism?

        Information that already exists has very little
value, the observant already know it.

        So what you want, is elimination of copyright,
patent, trademark, design, intellectual property
and trade secret laws.

         
         M  O  R  O  N.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360803

On 8/14/2015 5:38 PM, kefischer wrote:
>          Why are you holding back on the underlying
> agenda you are touting, is it total socialism, or the
> utopian ignorance of communism?
>
>          Information that already exists has very little
> value, the observant already know it.
>
>          So what you want, is elimination of copyright,
> patent, trademark, design, intellectual property
> and trade secret laws.

That sure sounds like what he wants.

It sounds like he wants the lowering of value to that which everyone can 
do in their spare time. It sounds like that he holds that copyright, 
patents, trademark, design, intellectual property, and trade secrets are 
the currencies of evil corporations. So the cure is that no development 
or design or method should be supported beyond what the moderately and 
broadly exposed individual can do on his own. So if the the individual 
is capable of building a family home, then there shall be no 
skyscrapers. If the individual is capable of building his own 
electronics, then there shall be no cellular networks or 10-nm chip 
manufacturers. If the individual is capable of building his own 
horse-drawn carriage, then this is favored over massive car 
manufacturing operations that stifle creativity.

Or maybe he thinks that it's only computers that everyone should know 
about, because computers are what he cares about. And it's only the 
software and internet companies that he's pissed about. Because after 
all, they're the ones he can't find work with.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360776

On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:43:44 -0400, kefischer wrote:

> 
>           You are dreaming the impossible dream,
>

You are expressing a defeatist attitude.  With cowards like you,
it's no wonder that the world still wallows in primitivism.

There are on-line journals.  They do it.  Therefore, all of them
can do it.


> 
>           Until the drive gets erased or fails.
>

Why aren't the "cloud" companies in a state of alarm?

Digital information requires new management techniques.  If managed
properly, digital info can last forever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#360779

On 8/14/2015 3:05 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:43:44 -0400, kefischer wrote:
>
>>
>>            You are dreaming the impossible dream,
>>
>
> You are expressing a defeatist attitude.  With cowards like you,
> it's no wonder that the world still wallows in primitivism.
>
> There are on-line journals.  They do it.  Therefore, all of them
> can do it.

Yep, they can do it. They require a subscription. No free information 
there, bub.

>
>
>>
>>            Until the drive gets erased or fails.
>>
>
> Why aren't the "cloud" companies in a state of alarm?
>
> Digital information requires new management techniques.  If managed
> properly, digital info can last forever.
>

I agree, and that's where libraries are going.
The value of libraries, as the sponsored place where you can go to 
access that information without having to pay for it yourself with a 
subscription or an online purchase, remains.

My earlier comment about libraries stands.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web