Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:45 In article <7f9a9$455863fb$4fe717f$30468(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <2c2ba$455743de$49ecffa$23510(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <a687d$4557300e$49ecffa$23098(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>You are wrong. Some, if not all, are science and/or engineering >>>>trained. I'm trying to figure out how thinking that is used to >>>>working analytically, makes such spectacular thinking leaps. >>> >>>We disagree. >> >> >> <gasp>!!!!! What are we supposed to do now? ;-) > >Heck, I dunno, get into a flamewar like everyone else? Those people aren't capable of conducting a really good flamewar. > >Pass. :-) Oh, drat. Now what's the next step in order to be a lucas? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >>I would argue that anybody who is still making minimum wage after any > >> >>time > >> >>at all in a job, isn't productive and doesn't deserve to be rewarded. > >> > > >> >There are some who are working at the limit of their ability. These > >> >people still deserve enough of a wage to live on. I have, indirectly, > >> >employed such a person in the past. He showed up for work on time and > >> >remained for the required time, but instructions to him needed to be made > >> >without subordinate clauses because he could not parse them. He is never > >> >going to get promoted into management no matter how hard he works. > >> > >> The grocers hire people who think this way. They are their best > >> workers. Now why do you assume that these types have to be > >> paid only minimum wage and never get performance raises? > > > >Wow ! > > > >That's socialist talk ! Did you realise that ? > > It is called capitalism which you call socialism. That's another > oddness that comes from Europe. From your comment I inferred that you thought that 'menial jobs' should not necessarily be low paid. That certainly isn't how capitalism works. Capitalism will seek to drive costs down to the very limit. That generally means the lowest possible wages for a given task. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Nov 2006 09:47 In article <a871b$45574416$49ecffa$23510(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <9a071$4557314e$49ecffa$23098(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <4555F0FA.3C4FF876(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I am at a slight loss in the >>>>>>medicine coverage if I use Canadian pricing as >>>>>>the basis, but way ahead if I use USA prices. >>>>> >>>>>Why are the same medicines more expensive in the USA ? >>>> >>>> >>>>We pay the development costs. >>> >>>And we generously sell the medicines for less overseas. >>> >> >> It has nothing to do with generosity. > >There's no significant profit involved. What would you call it? There is a profit over manufacturing costs. It just doesn't recoup the research costs to the point of feeding cash into current research. Another advantage is presence. A lot of the manufacturing appears to be getting moved to those countries with tax benefits, etc. I'm waiting until India and China figure out how to run clean rooms. /BAH
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 09:51 Ben Newsam wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:46:52 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: >>We already know that you favor Marxist socialism so it is hard >>to understand why you're in such constant denail. We know the >>reason we dislike it is because it is socialist. > We know the reason you say you dislike it is that you say it is > "socialist", which isn't quite the same at all. > It is interesting to speculate just what you do or do not consider > "socialist". For instance, I am almost certain that you do not > consider caring for an immediate family member "socialist". Humanitarian. > I would > imagine that to be "socialist", a caring action has to be performed by > a government of some sort. Nope. It is taking a service normally performed by the private sector and having the government take it over. Telephone service is an excellent example. Medical care is another. That we, in western societies, cannot allow people to die in the streets for want of housing or food isn't socialist, that's humanitarian. We also have come to recognize that some people cannot be helped. > So let's assume the existence of an > extended family, in which the paterfamilias performs (with the > approval of the family, of course) some caring action for a distant > cousin. I guess that isn't really "socialist" either. Again, humanitarian. I usually have an unrelated to me elderly widow or widower that I befriend and assist over the long term, just because. At the moment I have one of each. I don't throw money at their problems, I talk to them, I listen, and occasionally do some very necessary errand for them. The elderly widow next door to my rental house, as an example, was taken to the hospital by ambulance earlier this year. She didn't have a key to the lock on her front door and so it was left unlocked. I got a new lock and installed it for her, and took her the new keys in the hospital. She paid for the lock. That's humanitarian. As you might gather from this, I have no objections to humanitarian acts. > Somehow, there > exists in your mind some boundary, some limit to your goodwill or > obligations for your fellow man, at which any right-minded action > suddenly becomes anathematical. The threshold happens when government crosses into what rightly should be the province of private enterprise. Military protection, as was suggested earlier, is obviously the province of the government. Telephone service and health care aren't. The rest of this common ideology should be obvious.
From: Eeyore on 14 Nov 2006 09:53
Sorcerer wrote: > The NHS is the world's worst bureaucracy > and the most expensive waster of human resources imaginable. Not needed to use it yet ? The economy of the NHS is a proven fact. Graham |