JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a
PFD.

We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's
90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily
extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat
alcoholics.

It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to
the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing.

Larry


Wouldn't letting them drown be more effective? :-)




Ahhh...another Libertarian!

On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote:


Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v


I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...

wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote:

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v


I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...


Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.

Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins.
They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness.
Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating,
facilitating etc.





Don't you just love it when they play, "Who, me?"

On Dec 1, 11:54 am, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote:

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...

Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing this
for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or
upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I knew a
guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others. He
went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL went
ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it

On Dec 1, 12:18 pm, wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:54 am, BAR wrote:





wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote:

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the
speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our
homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable
came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace
any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm...

Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned
lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a
conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference
between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in
1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now
support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing this
for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or
upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I knew a
guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others. He
went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL went
ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yeah, all of this with the same delivery hardware from pole to
house they years earlier told us would not support faster than 1200

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins.
They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness.
Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating,
facilitating etc.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a
rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I
disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I
know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective
of most people I have meet.


Nice try, a**hole.

No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible
righties here.

What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?"

Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the
same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same
views?

But nice try.

Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you.


You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between
your knees and looking up.

That'd be an inprovement from what greets him in the mirror every morning!

On Nov 30, 7:35�pm, Larry wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote in news:0b23b105-
:



Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS.
Unfortunately,
society doesn't work that way.

It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or
wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we
do to CARS.

We'd **** on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a
competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to
drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. �Just having
money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now.

At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really
stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear
of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. �I know lots of boaters who
drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License,
or stood a chance of losing it...

Of course, if we really cared, we'd say:
NO PFD....NO BOATING
But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid.

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

In my state, as in most others (over 40 states now) you are required
to pass a basic boating knowledge test. The requirement applies to
everybody by age group, and over the next few years the bracket
expands to include everybody born after 1955. We old geezers literally
get "grandfathered" in. :-)

A new boat buyer has 90 days, by law, to complete the education
course. Yes, one could argue "But look at all the damage that guy
could do in 90 days!"

The tests are probably so simple that they are almost meaningless.
You can take one "on-line", and I can't imagine what would prevent you
from simply swtiching back and forth between the test page and some
page with answers on it, or looking everything up in Chapman's as you
go. The downside of that is that Boobus Americanus and his two
brothers may decide, "Well, that's all we will ever have to know about
boating safety. We met all the qualifications. Didn't take two long,
either. What do you say we take the runabout and a couple of cases of
beer out to that island in the middle of the lake?"

The biggest controlling factor discouraging unqualified operators
isn't actually a law at all. It's the free enterprise system. Most
people purchasing a large boat like you use in your example will
either be financing a portion of it (which will require insurance), or
if they have been smart, thrifty, and lucky enough to arrange their
personal finanaces to allow them to pay cash they are likely to have
other and substantial assets that they will want to protect by
insuring the boat.

Can't say about where you live, but around here the insurance
companies get pretty restrictive with first time operators buying a
big boat, or even a case where somebody steps up from a 22-footer to a
48.
The insurance companies typically issue only a temporary, conditional
binder that can be converted to a permanent policy only *after* the
new owner gets professional instruction from a licensed master and (if
he or she has never done so) completes a USCGA or USPS class. The
neophyte who buys that 50-foot yacht will need to have a licensed
captain aboard for his first few cruises, at least if he expects to
have insurance in place.

On Nov 30, 7:28�pm, Larry wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote in news:98b13773-
:

If the boat was still floating, upside down,

Of course, we COULD force "them" to build boats that SELF-RIGHT
like a monohull sailboat, couldn't we? �That's not rocket science
to do with a little scrap iron.

Maybe if we weren't so set on making the damned boats so light
and thin and cheap-as-possible with some old iron in the keel so
it COULDN'T stay upside down for more than an instance...these
guys and hundreds to thousands like them over the years would
still be alive.

Forget it. �Brunswick profits is all that matters. �Just look in
any hull made in the last 40 years.....

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Yeah, you're right........assuming noboby want's to go more than 7-8
knots. Stick a big old keel on the bottom, pour in enough lead,
maintain a low superstructure- and joila, you've got a self-righting
boat.

The guys who want to go fishing 60 miles off shore at sunrise will
simply have to get underway shortly after dinner the night before. :-)