{Politics so we don't have to change the subject.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:56:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/23/2020 1:11 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/23/2020 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2020 9:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:

Similarly, I used to buy the Times somewhat regularly
(couple a week) but I just had enough of Paul Krugman one
day and quit. Science News on Tuesdays was not worth the
spike in blood pressure nor the screaming.

So you switched to the New York Post?

"Secret tape shows Joe Biden's cousin playing Russian
Roulette with two headed space alien!" with a sidebar
article "All the Kardashians forget to wear pants on the
same day!"

Journalism at its finest!** ;-)


Those are not Post headlines. Babylon Bee more likely.

I read Wall Street Journal and occasionally Chicago Trib on paper (Trib
is no longer available outside Illinois for subscription or news stand)

I read about a dozen US and European news web sites every morning, first
page only, to get a sense of what's being reported and then read a
smattering of articles in depth.

Regarding your attempt at satire, the information on the laptop only
corroborated and detailed previously reported bribery and influence
peddling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Ibbq_LG-4

Those arrangements were yesterday confirmed by a former partner in the
scam, an ex-Navy man:

https://www.newsweek.com/senate-comm...artner-1541390

Oh, it's so simple! Open and shut case! Unless... wait...

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukra.../30181445.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...or/3785620002/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9147001.html

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/14/su...al-media-bans/

... unless you don't spend all day on right-wing news outlets.

The problem with all of these "news" items is the very noticeable lack
of "facts". Even a casual reader will note the repeated use of the
words "Alleged" "Purported" and other similar terms.

Note that we see the same sort of alleged attributes right here...
particularly from the tortuous Tommy.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 17:09:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/23/2020 4:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/23/2020 2:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 8:49:41 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 10/22/2020 8:46 PM, jbeattie wrote:

https://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Specialized/inside-specialized_about-us?$hybris-nav$
I stopped by the warehouse for a ride with Hans Heim
(now CEO of Ibis), Charlie Mack, both down front -- and
Mike S. and some others. They did a regular ride around
the reservoirs in Almaden Valley.

??? Bikes with racks?? And bags?? And cantilever brakes??

Yes, that picture was taken in '81 (or a little earlier)
at about the same time Specialized introduced the Allez
and Sequoia -- and the Stumpjumper. Mike S. may be
holding onto one of the first Stumpjumpers, which came
with cantilevers.
https://www.bikeforums.net/classic-v...oia-allez.html
I was told that the Sequoia reviewed by Bicycling was
hand-built by Tim Neenan and not from the first production
out of Japan. Charlie Mack (down front in the picture)
built the wheels and not Wheelsmith. He was pleased with
the shout-out for building the truest wheels John Schubert
had seen out of bike box. I met Charlie earlier in the
'70s, and he already had a full Campy tool kit, which was
a huge investment back then.

BTW, speaking of racks, one of my SJSU cohorts, Jim
Blackburn was really taking off -- as you can see from two
of those bikes, although he had been around for a whopping
five years before that picture.
http://bulgier.net/pics/bike/Catalog...to-76/p36.html
The exact rack and panniers I bought in '76 from PAB. I
still have the Kirtland bags, and they smell like dead rats.

Anyway, a year later, all those guys would probably be
photographed with Specialized bikes. And now the whole
herd would be photographed with plastic bikes with discs.
Technology has moved on. My son's beater commuter is an
ebike like the one my wife rides.

Also, there are people touching bicycles but not wearing
foam plastic hats.

You're lucky to have survived.

Why argue about helmets? Even during that period, a lot of
people wore helmets, but they may have been deceived by
Big Helmet/Big Hairnet. htt

I'm merely pointing out that fashion is weird and powerful.
Things that were perfectly fine in 1981 are now so clunky,
weird and even dangerous that no bicyclist should consider
using them. Some of it is Safety Inflation, some is pure
fashion.



An excellent point about cultural relativity.

I saw in Science News an article about decreasing volume of
ice floes in the Canadian arctic. Says scientist Ashley
Cunsolo of the Labrador Institute of Memorial
University,"Inuit community members are coping too, in part
by creating programs such as classes in traditional weaving
practices to keep people connected to their culture when
they can't go out on the ice as much."

Hand weaving good, modern textiles bad. Check.

No one cares about preserving my cultural values regarding a
balanced engine with a hot cam and four big carburetors.

Yes, fashion is weird and powerful.

Yup, I can remember when hand woven "Thai Silk" cloth in "sarong"
lengths was less then $32/each and now it is $161/each.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 22:45:28 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:33:50 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


My great surprise is that any competition to Windows hasn't arisen. Can
you think of anyone that actually likes windows?

If you mean MS windows, what could have been the competition had adopted
the cry since 1993 "if you want to know how to fix it, read the source
code'. Now they are developing a system that is as complex, unreliable
and vulnerable as anything from MS.

I recently saw an "ATM" machine "booted" after being worked on...
MicroSoft Windows. And the last time I was in Singapore I noticed that
the machines used in main Singapore airport were also MS Windows
machines.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:59:14 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the
use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The
airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people,
How do you arrive at that claim.

whose representatives
make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That
the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against
libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose
conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial
advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

Actually is ensure their commercial survival, which GovCo thinks is for
the greater good.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 06:30:28 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 22:45:28 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:33:50 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


My great surprise is that any competition to Windows hasn't arisen.
Can you think of anyone that actually likes windows?

If you mean MS windows, what could have been the competition had adopted
the cry since 1993 "if you want to know how to fix it, read the source
code'. Now they are developing a system that is as complex, unreliable
and vulnerable as anything from MS.

I recently saw an "ATM" machine "booted" after being worked on...
MicroSoft Windows. And the last time I was in Singapore I noticed that
the machines used in main Singapore airport were also MS Windows
machines.

They were OS/2, then they went to MS NT. Now, they'll probably be MS Win
X, which is funny because the original "problem" was banks complaining
about IBM upgrading the OS/2 kernel and the banks claiming they didn't
have time to thoroughly test the new kernel(took years?) before a new
kernel was rolled out. So IBM obligingly announced they would 'freeze'
the OS/2 kernel and MS trumpeted IBM had abandoned OS/2.

Lol, so now the bank ATMs operate on a very insecure operating system and
they fully understand the full impact of "commercial risk".

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:59:17 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:59:11 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 2:01:07 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 5:04:19 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 3:54:33 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 5:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:27:42 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/22/2020 1:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/20/2020 8:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

O.K., let's get Andrew onboard and test out your theory. Andrew, start selling all you stock below cost and vanquish your competitors. You will be Walmart in no time. Andre will bankroll you, at least until the Yellow Jersey IPO -- or bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

-- Jay Beattie.

Are you trying to say that Andre's theory of losing money on everything
you sell but making it up on the volume, doesn't work in the real world?

It does work, at least until all your investors tire of pumping in
money. That's when you go IPO and find a lot of clueless small investors
to lose money. The founders often do get rich before the whole thing
collapses.

I was told that one start-up I worked at was a "rocketship to the moon"
by the recruiter. It was a lot of fun, but my stock options were
worthless by the time I could exercise them. But the founders made out
like bandits.

I hope that bike shops enjoy the current boom.
Another humorous thing is that you can sell below [your] cost and still be selling above other's costs. Our family owned a drug store, and my father was a Kodak dealer with preferred pricing, but we could still buy flashbulbs/flashcubes (remember those?) cheaper on sale at the carpet-bagging Thrifty Drug that moved into town in the '60s. They had purchase limits, so my entire family would go over in shifts and buy them out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/d9...670ea166e8.jpg (boo, hiss).

You can get half of everything in the QBP catalog cheaper from Wiggle or PBK. Shimano pulled the plug on those two, but other brands are still cheaper than QBP. There is no way a local bike shop can price compete -- except moving close-out, seconds or others' overstock. Rivercity does millions in sales, but not because they are cheap. https://tinyurl.com/y3bgpbfn

-- Jay Beattie.
Why am I not surprised that you don't understand anything about investing? No one sells below their price unless they are attempting to put a competitor out of business. And that NEVER works for mom and pop establishments.

And yet successful examples abound where the instigator has
a plan and enough capital to last out the losses and his
victim does not.
Sure. But those are outliers. The question to ask is: "After Mom & Pop have driven XYZ-1 out of business and restored prices to a profitable level, what will it cost XYZ-2 to enter in competition to Mom & Pop?" The answer, even in generalities, demonstrates why this works best when the competitors are large and few; clearcut examples in oligopoly situations abound: Microsoft and Google both grew so fast by simply consuming their competitors. It also works when the aggressor is huge and amorphous, which is the case in the many supermarket chain/multitude of smaller suppliers driven into positions where the supermarket chain can buy them out, which is why management consultants or academic economists, called in to advise the government about antitrust policy, say as they come through the door, and keep saying in different ways, "First you have to block vertical integration of suppliers and retailers, or you'll never get a grip on this abuse."

Andre Jute
Economics doesn't need to be "the dismal science": Malthus and Riccardo are dead, and Marx and Engels disgraced.

Yes, every such situation is temporary because markets are
inherently volatile.

Hence my utter opposition to 'anti trust' theory which is a
political cudgel (even when used against despicable jerks)
without economic justification.

In Google, Facebook Twitter and Yahoos cases it is not financial but survival of a Constitutional government. These people do NOT believe in the Constitution or that anyone should have the slightest control on anything they do. If they were fair and ethical the point would never have arisen but they are not and in order to save our country we must destroy these despotic wannabees.


Then charge them with sedition. It's at least a more honest
charge than anti trust.
+1! Although the anti-trust complaint passes the smell test, its obviously retaliatory.

The people who yell the loudest about the First Amendment seem to understand it the least. Facebook is not the government. If you don't like their policies, unplug. Vote with your feet, or your fingers.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tell me then, Jay, why does the government license use of the airwaves for radio and television? -- Andre Jute

What does this have to do with Google?

The protection against libel that the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter and others of the same complexion is in fact a license.

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people, whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

ISPs are subject to regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 as common carriers, which falls squarely within Congress' Commerce Clause authority. The last time I checked, however, nothing in the Act gives the government the right to regulate speech on the internet. Requiring any private service provider or platform to carry a message favorable to any party is compelled speech and against the First Amendment.

Of course it is. Why are you throwing around straw men with such gay abandon? No one, least of all Bill Barr, is arguing that Google must carry messages favourable to the government. The argument, when made, will be different. If the People-in-Government give Google et al a privilege/license to broadcast messages free of the libel liability that adheres like an anchor to the publishers of journals, books and broadcasts, these media cannot then claim they are private institutions with a publisher's right to edit or exclude any messages. They can't have it both ways, hiding behind the government's skirts when they libel someone, and claiming publisher's rights when the government has already given them the benefit of protecting them from the disabilities of publishers, which, I repeat, is an incalculable financial advantage.

All of the alt-right victims whining about free speech rights are actually calling for the government to infringe on the well established right not to speak, viz., Facebook, Google, etc. right not to carry a message with which they disagree. Even the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine, and it never applied to newspapers or the internet -- just FCC licensees. And if that doctrine had been enforced after the '60s, Faux News would have died on the vine.

The Fairness Doctrine, if enforced, would just move the same editorial control into the hands of a different set of the same sort of people. The BBC in Britain, which has a monopoly government grant in that they are the only broadcasters who benefit by the television licence fee, are an excellent example of the failure of fairness doctrines. By way of example, the BBC let their totally one-sided policy on global warming be decided by pressure groups. It did their credibility an immense amount of harm.

Moreover, the anti-trust suit has nothing to do with the content of speech. It has to do with anti-competitive behavior.

So what? Google should also be punished for interference in free speech, and the quickest way, and most consistent with American mores, is to open them up to prosecution for the many libels they commit every day. Hallelujah! Amen! If you can't hold two ideas in your head at once, try reading every second paragraph of my posts.

The actual purpose of the suit, however, is to punish Google and others for being critical of Donald Trump.

So you admit that Google is gaming the system, benefitting from being declared "not a publisher, not liable to libel," but at the same time enforcing an editorial policy of being against one party and it's leader, who just happens to be in government? Duh.

The simplest solution, of course, is to withdraw the government's oligopoly license to Google, Facebook and Twitter, and let then try to stand on their own feet -- and face all the libel suits their stupid double standards will attract. Now listen to the screams of outrage of the Donkey Party Faithful (the Daffies), who think they have a right to benefit from the present double standard.

What oligopoly license? They're not licensed at all, and they are standing on their own two feet, except to the extent they're propped up by shareholders, which is an entirely different scam. Are you calling for more government regulation? Overt regulation of speech? Can we all pick words and phrases we don't like? I want to ban "kicking curs." It's too alliterative and demeaning to dogs.


The Republicans could always repeal the Communications and Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230, to punish Google by stripping them of defamation protection, but it won't accomplish their goals. Google will just pull the plug on their alt-right homeboys. That statute is the only reason why Alex Jones has access to the internet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rules-n1109096

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/23/2020 6:52 PM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:59:14 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the
use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The
airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people,
How do you arrive at that claim.

whose representatives
make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That
the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against
libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose
conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial
advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

Actually is ensure their commercial survival, which GovCo thinks is for
the greater good.


Are you kidding? Only a man who has never had an
interaction, let alone a hostile interaction, with any
government agency could write that. 'Greater good' my ass.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 19:25:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/23/2020 6:52 PM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:59:14 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates the
use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc. The
airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people,
How do you arrive at that claim.

whose representatives
make arrangements to license them subject to certain conditions. That
the government gives Google, Facebook, Twitter etc protection against
libel is also all the reason required for the government to impose
conditions on such a huge privilege, which is also clearly a commercial
advantage that privileges them against print and broadcast media.

Actually is ensure their commercial survival, which GovCo thinks is for
the greater good.


Are you kidding? Only a man who has never had an
interaction, let alone a hostile interaction, with any
government agency could write that. 'Greater good' my ass.

Well, given that "The Government" is the ultimate authority in the
land (whatever land it is) logically attempting to "beard the lion",
as it were in the lion's front room is probably going to result in
failure.

When I was stationed in Japan I got a speeding ticket, issued by a
Military Policemen for speeding, approximately 100 yards after I
pulled out of a petrol station. I appealed the ticket arguing that
there was no possibly way that the Air Cop could have "clocked" me
accurately in that 100 yards. And yes, the ticket was voided,
cancelled, whatever.

And I got five "illegal parking" tickets in the next two days :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 19:25:34 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/23/2020 6:52 PM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 15:59:14 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:57:56 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

The government regulates the airwaves in the same way it regulates
the use of public parks, grazing land, water, mineral resources, etc.
The airwaves are a limited government asset that is licensed to
users.

No. The airwaves are the property of the people,
How do you arrive at that claim.

whose representatives make arrangements to license them subject to
certain conditions. That the government gives Google, Facebook,
Twitter etc protection against libel is also all the reason required
for the government to impose conditions on such a huge privilege,
which is also clearly a commercial advantage that privileges them
against print and broadcast media.

Actually is ensure their commercial survival, which GovCo thinks is for
the greater good.


Are you kidding? Only a man who has never had an interaction, let alone
a hostile interaction, with any government agency could write that.
'Greater good' my ass.

You picked up on the meaning of "greater good" perfectly. Our
conservatives think it is the greater flow of $$$$ in sales of junk, cost
of health treatment, etc, etc.

On Friday, October 23, 2020 at 3:29:58 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:31:26 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 9:40:22 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

It diverts from the fact that the opoid epidemic cam about by GovCo
deliberately ignoring the early statements of warning by the medical
profession.. Pick your boogie man and go after them. The masses will
watch n the idiot box.
I suggest you learn something before writing your crap. There are almost
NO effective severe pain killers.
As always, YMMV. Response to various 'pain killers' is an individual
matter. Under your comment, surgons would be out of business.
That is why it has been around for
thousands of yeas after it was discovered and refined into morphine. It
is difficult to over prescribe it with all of the regulations against
its sale.
Then why does the USA have an opoid crisis?
Because China is sending this stuff in across the Canadian border and it is cheap as hell for those who are easily addicted and too stupid to be careful. Sort of like you. https://www.aspi.org.au/opinion/aust...s-drug-problem