Super duper hype fast FET driver?

[Jamie]

You can't lay off a scope. ;-)

No, but you can lay on one, especially when you fall asleep at the helm!.

Jamie

 

[Nico Coesel]

I forgot to mention one "minor" detail. When I called 911 I got a
message that all operators are busy. Then it rang but plopped back to
the busy tape. Almost hung up until finally someone picked up. That
reminded me of a 911-recording from somewhere in the south-east, went
something like this: "Sir, I understand and we'll do our best but right
now all officers are busy" ... *POW* .. *POP* ... "Sir, what was that?"
... "Well, now it's only one intruder instead of two" ... "We'll have
someone right there!"

The first (and hopefully last time) I had to call the emergency
number they first had to put me through. WTF? Get an ambulance over
her now! No time for endless questions about what had happened.

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.

I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.

To put things into a better perspective: Alcohol is a much bigger
problem than other drugs. It is easier to get rid of a heroin
addiction than an alcohol addiction. The reason it is less visible is
because alcoholic beverages can be bought everywhere and no-one will
ask questions.

And there are also costs involved:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/The5MostExpensiveAddictions.aspx

 

[Clifford Heath]

abortion was entirely illegal
when I was a university student, but easily available from properly
trained medical practitioners

In the early 1970's Melbourne (perhaps when you were here?),
one of these started going by the pseudonym Dr. John Heath,
which is my father's name (and then, title). Dad is an
orthodontist... but we got a number of very mysterious phone
calls from people who wanted him, but wouldn't say why. We
almost had to revert to a silent number.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Knowledge of God is primarily knowledge by acquaintance,

Yes, I've been down that psychic rabbit-hole too. Like anyone, I can set
up mental simulations of many people I've never even met, and with enough
time, become convinced they're real, as happened when I was converted.

Christianity considered as a philosophical system is entirely consistent
with honestly conducted science

That's just not true. Science indicates there never was a time when the
world was good, when the lion lay down with the lamb, and there never
will (or should) be. It was simple and became complicated; that's
the arrow of time; it's not a description of a process of corruption,
which monotheists call sin. The idea of the fall is the most pernicious
evil ever to befall humankind, immensely damaging to societies and
individuals alike. The attempt to recreate or return to a situation that
never did and never can exist is a total waste of time and effort. We
must look forward to what can be, not backward.

Christianity moreover almost totally destroyed science, as known to the
Greeks and Romans, and it was left to the Muslims to preserve and extend
it. Seriously - Europe had even forgotten how to build arches! Europe
only rediscovered science in the 12th century or so, for example when
the great library of Toledo was opened and found to be full of books in
a Latin from which 50% of the words, and 95% of the concepts had been
lost. The universities were founded upon the attempt to re-learn the
knowledge of the ancients - and even that was only possible because
religious authority (and even royal authority) was beginning to be
questioned.

...I'm sorry about that. But unforgiveness like that will... ....
The way unforgiveness eats people up isn't theology, though, it's a
matter of common observation.

The relevance? Oh, I see, your ideology doesn't allow you to conceive of
of a person who has lived inside the kind of loving Xian community you do,
and who has now left and is adamantly opposed to their conception of truth,
who is not also eaten up by guilt, loathing and spiteful thoughts - but is
instead happy, productive, well-adjusted, and leading a highly ethical
life. I suppose I should feel offended by your prejudice, but I've worn
those blinkers too. Now I just feel mellow about it. It was a happy time
with good sincere people, even though their lives were being sapped by
trying to re-create an unreality.

Sorry your barbs didn't stick. I've been where you are, spent years in many
different kinds of Christian communities and experienced all they had to
offer, and now I'm profoundly sure that you're wrong. I'm not bitter at
all, though I do think my time might have been better spent elsewhere.
It's not that I'm an atheist; I'm far from that confident. It's just that
the ideas of theism don't and cannot answer any question I care about.

Anyhow, this isn't really the place to continue this discussion. I also have
written more on the subject, elsewhere, though I don't publish much of it.

 

[Clifford Heath]

The near trillion dollar a year business bribes everyone in
our gov't systems.

Not to mention that it is currently providing the bullets and
explosives that are being used to blow up Americans and others
in Afghanistan. You're bleeding money out the front door paying
to send soldiers to the war, and out the back door paying the
Taliban to fight against you. No wonder the country's bankrupt...

 

[JW]

in Message id: <[email protected]>:

[...]

What if she was raped?

That is one of those tough cases. Very rare but happens. If she is a
religious woman she'd probably carry it out and either raise it herself
or adopt it out. The unborn isn't guilty fot it. Rape also happens a lot
in "consentual" relationships, more than it seems.

OK. Just out of curiosity, how about if the baby is/will be severely
deformed? Mind you, I'm not judging you on your beliefs...

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

[...]

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.

I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.

Yes, I gave the Netherlands of the 80's as an example because that
showed rather clearly where "free" narcotics policies lead to. I have
heard from friends there that they since have tightened up laws and
enforcement. When I was young lots of people from Germany boarded trains
on weekends, to Amsterdam, to get stoned. AFAIK that is not much the
case anymore.

To put things into a better perspective: Alcohol is a much bigger
problem than other drugs. It is easier to get rid of a heroin
addiction than an alcohol addiction. The reason it is less visible is
because alcoholic beverages can be bought everywhere and no-one will
ask questions.

And there are also costs involved:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/The5MostExpensiveAddictions.aspx

Take a closer look: Alcohol is freely accessible in the US. Cost given
is $166B. Drugs are prohibited and can only be used clandestinely in the
US yet contribute a whopping $110B. That tells the story quite clearly,
doesn't it?

Thus the cost per addicted user is much higher with drugs. If we'd allow
unfettered access we'd drown in health care costs for addicts. But to me
it's not just the cost. Alkohol is a slow addiction. People will notice,
the person becomes tired all the time, makes mistakes at work, gets
caught by police whiled driving, becomes belligerent, or you just notice
"Man, it's not even 8:00pm and he's on his third beer already". Drugs,
different thing. On Wednesday a person looks normal, just like every
day. On Sunday the policeman with a sad face knocks at the door, a mom
opens and then breaks down in tears. Seen it :-(

 

[Joerg]

in Message id: <[email protected]>:

[...]

How does that justify killing the unborn?
What if she was raped?

That is one of those tough cases. Very rare but happens. If she is a
religious woman she'd probably carry it out and either raise it herself
or adopt it out. The unborn isn't guilty fot it. Rape also happens a lot
in "consentual" relationships, more than it seems.

OK. Just out of curiosity, how about if the baby is/will be severely
deformed? Mind you, I'm not judging you on your beliefs...

It would not be up to us to kill it then. Think about it: If it was "ok"
to kill it then, where will the line be drawn? Will the line be moved
some day? Will they start killing babies with Down syndrome? What if
they can detect autism in a fetus some day, will they kill that as well?
Scary.

I have met several people with severe deformities, autisms and quite
hardcore Down syndrome who were rather loving folks to be around.
Including one miracle guy, he lived well past 60 which was thought to be
impossible with down syndrome. It's been years now but we still miss him.

 

[John S]

That's the thing, I never took any drugs

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

The woman that wept a lot because her son (whom I knew) died from drugs.
The guy who'd stare through you if you said "goede morgen". The guy in
the space suit who cleaned street gutters all day long although they
were clean. He couldn't talk at all anymore. Should I go on? This was
back then a village of about 5000 people, so families knew each other
quite well.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

 

[John S]

Some people have addictive personalities, and some other people are in
the business of inventing and selling unnatural, irresistible
substances.

If they are truly irresistible, why are you not an addict?

Lots of industries are based around over-stimulating our natural
appetites, things that evolved 100K years ago: fast cars, drugs, porn,
junk food, video games, casino gambling, cigarettes, payday loans,
television, things like that.

John

It is always a choice.

 

[Joerg]

Why not? Did you simply choose not to take drugs? But those you observed
had no choice?

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.

I wonder who forced them to use drugs?

Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

 

[John S]

Everybody had that choice. I chose to say no.



Nobody. But some people's will power is not high enough to say no when
stuff is highly available. That's why drug problems in "free drug"
countries are usually massively worse than elsewhere.

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

 

[Joerg]

If you really believe that, then it is like me arguing against a
religion. I concede that I cannot win against faith.

You do not believe that people have different levels of will power?

Regarding the drug problems, that has nothing to do with what I believe.
I have lived in both kinds of countries for many years. Living there
gives you a much better insight than any biased or even unbiased media
pieces.

Have you lived overseas and see for yourself?

 

[Nico Coesel]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

[...]

And _you_ are bothered by a few stoners sticking it up your
nose that they get to smoke some pot in front of you without
getting arrested?

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.

I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.

Yes, I gave the Netherlands of the 80's as an example because that
showed rather clearly where "free" narcotics policies lead to. I have

In the 80's all drugs where illegal and they still are. Only growing
and possessing small amounts of pot is allowed since a few years.
Coffeeshops are a means to keep the organized crime out but they are
in the gray zone between legal and illegal.

heard from friends there that they since have tightened up laws and
enforcement. When I was young lots of people from Germany boarded trains
on weekends, to Amsterdam, to get stoned. AFAIK that is not much the
case anymore.

It -more or less- still is, but not for long. Coffeeshops are no
longer allowed to serve tourists.

Take a closer look: Alcohol is freely accessible in the US. Cost given
is $166B. Drugs are prohibited and can only be used clandestinely in the
US yet contribute a whopping $110B. That tells the story quite clearly,
doesn't it?
Thus the cost per addicted user is much higher with drugs. If we'd allow

You assume there are more alcohol addicts than drug addicts. Without
numbers to compare you really can't tell. For example: crystal meth
-which is extremely addictive- can be procuded from household
chemicals. The word is that whole neighbourhoods in the US are
addicted to this stuff which they 'cook' in their own homes. From the
info on Wikipedia it seems making crystal meth is easier than brewing
your own beer.

unfettered access we'd drown in health care costs for addicts. But to me
it's not just the cost. Alkohol is a slow addiction. People will notice,
the person becomes tired all the time, makes mistakes at work, gets

You are missing my point: alcohol shouldn't be available so easy. In
NL there is strict enforcement of laws to prevent abuse of alcohol
(especially by teenagers). Interestingly NL has a relatively low
amount of alcohol addicts in comparison to other countries with a
'western livestyle'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

 

[John S]

Because I was born with an anti-addictive personality.

How do you know that? You have proof of your assertion?

I get bored

with things faster than I become addicted to them. And because I
*think* about what I'm doing and make decisions. Other people aren't
so lucky.

Really? So I guess one must simply *think* to either avoid or succumb to
drugs. Yes?

Even kids have a choice. But they must be guided by their
parents/caretakers. They cannot be dumped into a school or whatever and
forgotten.

I had respect for you John, but now I see that you don't want to face
reality.

 

[John S]

Right. It's a simple matter of public safety. We can't let
professional designer-drug experts prey on people with limited
resources of self-control.

John

What happened to the "Just Say NO" campaign?

 

[Joerg]

Jon Kirwan wrote: [...]

And _you_ are bothered by a few stoners sticking it up your
nose that they get to smoke some pot in front of you without
getting arrested?

I am bothered by two things:

a. By the people I have seen being wasted by drugs while linving in the
Netherlands. The ones that died weren't even the worst off, though their
siblings and parents sure were. The ones that only almost died grieve me
the most. Many of them had to essentially go on living almost as a
vegetable for another 40-50 years.
I'd still like to emphasize that for some odd reason you ended up in a
place with a lot of drug abuse. No offense taken but I really don't
recognize the NL in the picture you are painting. OTOH it might be
that more people where experimenting with chemical drugs in the early
80's than now.

Yes, I gave the Netherlands of the 80's as an example because that
showed rather clearly where "free" narcotics policies lead to. I have

In the 80's all drugs where illegal and they still are. Only growing
and possessing small amounts of pot is allowed since a few years.

Nope. We had a sign in the youth club Spuugh in Vaals (Zuid Limburg) and
it read in English "No hard drugs, otherwise we call the police". What
they called soft drugs was allowed.

Coffeeshops are a means to keep the organized crime out but they are
in the gray zone between legal and illegal.


It -more or less- still is, but not for long. Coffeeshops are no
longer allowed to serve tourists.

Yes, that's what I meant with tightening up on drugs. Seems some leson
have finally been learned.

You assume there are more alcohol addicts than drug addicts. Without
numbers to compare you really can't tell. For example: crystal meth
-which is extremely addictive- can be procuded from household
chemicals. The word is that whole neighbourhoods in the US are
addicted to this stuff which they 'cook' in their own homes. From the
info on Wikipedia it seems making crystal meth is easier than brewing
your own beer.

There are with absolute certainty several times more _users_ of alcohol
than drugs. Except for maybe 2-3 people everyone else I know regularly
drinks beer or wine. Nobody I know takes drugs. Even if there were some
who wouldn't tell me, it would just be a handful.

You are missing my point: alcohol shouldn't be available so easy. In
NL there is strict enforcement of laws to prevent abuse of alcohol
(especially by teenagers). Interestingly NL has a relatively low
amount of alcohol addicts in comparison to other countries with a
'western livestyle'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism

So you agree that enforcement works then? That's what I was advocating
all the time. Lack of laws and enforcement is what resulted in all the
problems I saw in your country in the 80's. And I was by far not the
only one who was shocked by it. Now that they start cracking down on
stuff it gets better.

 

[Joerg]

[...]

I get bored

with things faster than I become addicted to them. And because I
*think* about what I'm doing and make decisions. Other people aren't
so lucky.

Really? So I guess one must simply *think* to either avoid or succumb to
drugs. Yes?

Yes.


Even kids have a choice. But they must be guided by their
parents/caretakers. They cannot be dumped into a school or whatever and
forgotten.

Exactamente. Up to a certain age the elders have to do the thinking part
for the kids when it comes to stuff that can be dagerous. Parents shall
not dump the job of educating their kids onto a nanny-state.
Unfortunately many parents no longer think that way. I am very glad mine
did, and I tell them that regularly.

 

[Les Cargill]

But realistic. US society protects people - none too effectively -
against the illegal drugs of addiction, but does nothing to prevent
them eating themselves into lethal obesity or drinking themselves to
death. you might want to think about what a self-consistent public
health policy might look like.

We know next to nothing about the pathologies of obesity. When doctors
take insulin production into account it begins to look like carbs,
*all* carbs contribute mightily to it - and a "healthy diet" as
it's presently advertised by gummint is thick in carbs.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carbs-weight-gain.html

I've dropped 20 pounds myself by emphasizing frozen veggies and meat
and cutting back on carbs.

A truly self-consistent public health policy would be *FAR* too
invasive.

 

[Les Cargill]

On Aug 25, 7:02 am, John Larkin

Legalising soft drugs drop the profit margin on supplying them, and
makes the people who supply the drug a part of the community.

They are running the experiment right now in Northern California.
The people who participate are making pretty good money.

Nobody talks about liquor store owners, Starbucks, or the people who
sell cigarettes as "professional predators".

The tobacco companies? Yeah, they do.

They do have an interest in selling more of their - addictive -
products, but they are better integrated into their communities than
dealers in illegal drugs and have more to lose if they are seen to
trying to encourage people into addiction.

Economists know that demand largely exists independent of supply...