Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Don Bowey on 14 Nov 2006 22:26 On 11/14/06 7:10 PM, in article c8320$455a826c$4fe72fc$12883(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > Don Bowey wrote: >> On 11/14/06 5:11 PM, in article af2fc$455a6697$4fe40db$12195(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Don Bowey wrote: >>> >>> >>>> By the way, who helped you get the wage you receive(d)? >>> >>> Here's a bit of news for you. >>> >>> I negotiated it based on my performance and reports from >>> those I formerly did work for. I discovered something >>> pretty simple that seems to elude several of you >>> posting to this thread. Employers will gladly pay >>> someone for any exceptional value they bring to the job. >>> >>> When that work is sitting there while a machine makes >>> widgets and occasionally hauling away the finished >>> product and filling the blanks bin, then there's no >>> exceptional value the employee is able to bring to the >>> job. >>> >>> There's a Marxist-socialist undercurrent in this >>> discussion which seems to want to equate the value >>> of all work and all workers. >>> >>> It never works that way unless artificial controls are >>> imposed. >>> >>> >>>> If you say 'nobody' you're a fool. >>> >>> I helped me get the wages I received. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> And you are a fool. > > For getting a great wage every time out? LOL No. For being so dense you are unaware of where you received help. It's pointless of you to respond to this. > > Here's a Bowey who criticizes success. Good going there. > > > > >
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 22:27 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1fc3cca0c79bee02989b44(a)news.individual.net... > In article <kgl6h.25069$TV3.20095(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4559DA19.3B5B7EC8(a)hotmail.com... >> > >> > >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >And you like to imply things that just aren't true. You weren't >> >> >living >> >> >on >> >> >"$2/day". >> >> >> >> Right. It was $2/month. >> > >> > And you can also clean a whole house in 15 mins ? >> >> The thing that she conveniently glosses over is that 1) it was in 1960s >> dollars, about a factor of 10 - 100 higher when adjusted for inflation, >> and >> 2) she was also paying tuition, room and board, which probably added at >> least $50/month in 1960 dollars, or $1000/month in 2006 dollars. > > $50 in 1960 would be equivalent to $316 in 2005. That's only 4% per year for the past 45 years? Seems awfully low. Still, even at $316, that's a far cry from $2/month. Oh, and by the way, typical college room and board, which she said she paid, includes rent and food, so that $2 didn't include her lodging or her daily eating needs. Those rose-colored glasses she's wearing are another part of what makes her resist change with every fiber of her being. Eric Lucas
From: Ken Smith on 14 Nov 2006 22:32 In article <ejck7c$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >>This person who can't follow complex instructions is on one side of the >>negotiations on the other we have a manager with experience at keeping >>their wages low. They aren't going to get the raise by negotiation >>skill. > >These people are very aware about money. They can compare wage >rates and are able to go to a competitor. They know about benefits >and the advantages and disadvantages of each. All of them are >very willing to tell you about all of this stuff :-). Who are the "these people" in the above. It is obvious it is not the person I refered to. >>The company that employs them is not a charity. Their purpose is to make >>a profit for their shareholders. They won't be raising the wages >>spontaneously. > >People get raises. Not everyone gets them. > >>There is very little competition for workers at the very >>low end of the scale. There are few jobs that really need to be done that >>they are able to do. > >ARe you kidding? You need to pay attention more. We had a gal >who could not think well in our computer group which turned >stuff into ASCII for doc writers, spec writers, and programmers >and their managers. Her talent was 120 WPM typing speed. She >was taught how to "program" doc files with RUNOFF commands >and churned out ASCII bits at a phenomenal rate. You are talking of a different person than the one I was using in my example. The one in my example would not have been likely to be able to do anything like that. Some people with low IQs are gifted but not all of them. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 14 Nov 2006 22:37 Michael A. Terrell wrote: > krw wrote: > >>In article <455A00B8.1CF0F40D(a)hotmail.com>, >>rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... >> >>> >>>krw wrote: >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Thanks. I used to thread pipe for my Dad. He never called >>>>>it a tap. He called a threader. >>>> >>>>A pipe "threader" would be called a "die". >>> >>>Not if it was an internal thread. >> >>I've never seen an internal thread on a pipe. Have you? > > > > You've never seen a threaded reducer that is a piece of pipe with male > & female threads? That's not "pipe". That's a bushing. "A pipe fitting used to join two pipes of different sizes. A bushing is threaded inside and out. Also a cylindrical part used as a lining or guide" www.alpha-plumbing.com/plumbing-terminology-b.htm pipe defined: "a long, hollow cylinder, usually steel, through which fluids are conducted." www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow2/jan99/new/oilvocab.html > I've used lots of them to connect 1/2" rigid conduit > to cast boxes with 3/4" internal threads. They are hard to see, if > properly installed. > > > A picture of the shoulderless version: > > <http://www.sonsbeek.com.au/product-details.asp?productID=84> > > > A picture of the shouldered version: > > <http://www.aquamole.com/accessories.html> > > > Also, the 91 series RF probes for the Boonton 92 & 9200 meters use > internally threaded pipe to make the adapters for various interfaces. > > <http://www.mjs-electronics.se/images/Boonton/91_12f.jpg> > >
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 22:38
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:loydnVCYG-ngs8fYnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejci47$8ss_030(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <qpidnRHj6e3o0crYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej79kg$8qk_015(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <M_t5h.736$yE6.654(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:f223d$45565fb7$4fe73d4$10122(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>>> Ben Newsam wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0000, "T Wake" >>>>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Are you implying that access to treatment should be on the basis of >>>>>>>>what >>>>>>>>the patient _thinks_ they need and can afford, rather than what the >>>>>>>>doctor thinks is the best treatment? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would imagine that under a system where anyone can visit any >>>>>>> specialist at any time, the best specialists would be inundated with >>>>>>> rich hypochondriacs wasting their time. >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't seem to happen much in the US. I don't >>>>>> need a referral to see a specialist. >>>>> >>>>>Sentence #1 doesn't follow from sentence #2 above. In fact, sentence >>>>>#1 >>>>>is >>>>>simply wrong. Your anecdote aside, anybody who has an HMO for their >>>>>health >>>>>care (i.e., most of the people insured through their jobs by corporate >>>>>concerns) must go through their PCP (primary care physician) to get to >>>>>a >>>>>specialist...at least they do if they want the HMO to pay for it. >>>> >>>> And you're stuck with that PCP if the others in the system aren't >>>> taking new patients. Thus, if the PCP is an incompetent doctor >>>> it takes years to be able to transfer to another's list. Here >>>> in the northeast no doctor is local. You have to drive or be >>>> driven or go the emergency room. That's it. >>> >>>Shame you don't have a nationalised health service really, isn't it? >> >> It is getting there. The reason there aren't local doctor >> offices is that they are all collected and put into a big >> office building. These centers get fewer and fewer as >> the companies who run them consolidate. > > You see, this still isn't a "national health service," nor is it > progressing towards one. In fact, it is progressing directly, 180 degrees *away* from one. The current wave of corporate consolidations are a direct result of free trade, and are caused by the SEC and FTC not exerting enough control over the monopolistic tendencies of free markets. Eric Lucas |