Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 22:55 In article <Lzv6h.6398$Sw1.5307(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fc3cb5179e833c9989b43(a)news.individual.net... > > > > (of course I don't have a phone line, > > so...). > > Well, that latter would be the real issue then, not the distance to a hub. No, you ditz! I choose not to have a phone line (too expensive), so if I were close enough for DSL it wouldn't matter. Geez! -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 22:57 In article <VcydnSA72slNp8fYRVnyvQ(a)pipex.net>, usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > > "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1fc3cafce1cb3355989b42(a)news.individual.net... > > In article <ejcl5p$8qk_009(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> In article <MPG.1fc25ed1ed313919989b01(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <ej9j89$8ss_002(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> >> In article <MPG.1fc110d0730ee4c8989af1(a)news.individual.net>, > >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> >> >Sure, but they learn not to do that! ;-) Falling on CCA treated > >> >> >SYP isn't much fun either. > >> >> > >> >> My feet are shuddering just thinking about walking on that trex > >> >> stuff. > >> > > >> >Trex isn't likely to leave a nasty arsenic coated splinter (I wear > >> >shoes when walking on my CCA SYP deck). > >> > >> Point. I haven't gone barefoot since I lived with my folks. > >> Urban places have too much broken glass that never gets > >> cleaned up. > > > > That's because no one will pay minimum wage to clean it up so the > > job doesn't get done. ;-) > > Cant be that important to people then. Nope. Minimum wage guratantees some jobs will not get done. ....but I wouldn't expect that simple fact to get through to you for at least another ten thousand posts. -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 22:58 In article <wOv6h.6401$Sw1.3659(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "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. Good fscking grief! Look the numbers up! -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 23:03 In article <gtjkl2llebqdctdo1phng9arjd8t7iq585(a)4ax.com>, ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:58:18 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >In article <sirhl21983tk9o21n39hsn7ebapn7demdi(a)4ax.com>, > >ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... > >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:18:42 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> > >> > Welfare ("benefits") is for > >> >socialists. > >> > >> I am sure that, if I find you one day having fallen out of a (almost > >> typed "your" there) tree or had some other kind of accident that would > >> require the intervention of someone else to prevent you bleeding or > >> freezing to death (or whatever), you will entirely understand if I do > >> absolutely nothing to help you or in any way conribute to your > >> welfare, because you do not believe in such things and would regard me > >> as a nasty socialist. OK, I can live with that. > >> > >SO you freely admit to being an idiot. > > Can you read? Certainly, can you *THINK*? ...apparently not. -- Keith
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 23:02
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:GZadnR1moYq8q8fYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejckhl$8qk_003(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <yt-dne7WCNI5zMrYRVnysw(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ej7ffd$8qk_042(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <455615CC.2B8A045E(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >> Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >Why ? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> It causes all other prices to eventually go up, especially >>>>>> >> housing. >>>>>> >> It eliminates wage competition. People's real productivity is >>>>>> >> no longer measured nor rewarded with wage. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >Can anyone actually live on that ? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> $10k/year? Yes. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >You wouldn't get far on ?5263 over here for sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't say it was easy and one also has to give up a lot >>>>>> of middle class "attitudes" ;-). >>>>> >>>>>Around here you'd pay ~ ?3000 p.a. minimum just for >>>>>a very basic rented room ! >>>> >>>> In the US you can't plan on renting when you stop working. Part >>>> of way we live is to spend a part of our wages on a place to live >>>> that will become yours after a few years. That way you can >>>> eliminate paying rent as part of your living expense. >>> >>>Your argument has more holes than swiss cheese. >>> >>>You cant plan on renting anywhere when you stop working. If you are >>>earning >>>$200 a week, how do you save for a place to live? Where do you live while >>>you are saving? What do you eat? >> >> When I said plan, I meant long-term planning. That is why people >> buy their own house and start paying the money they earn while >> young to pay off the mortgage. When the mortgage is paid off, >> they don't pay rent. The plan to stay in the house when >> they quit working. > > When you are earning $200 per week, how much can you spare to pay off a > mortgage? What duration are US Mortgages? The longest common mortgage used to be 30 years, with 15 and 10 not being uncommon. > How much of a deposit is normally put down? Typically 10 - 20%, although with the housing market softening, mortgage companies are starting to do really dodgy things, like suckering people that can barely afford it into a mortgage with 0% down. When someone is this financially strapped, it doesn't take much (one appliance failing, for example) for them to get well and truly upside-down, another term for "financially fucked". > I know you meant long term planning, but earning minimum wage does not > lend itself to that kind of living. Bingo. When people barely make enough to eat, the financial options available to them are significantly worse than those with a modest amount of disposable income. It's a scale that's very non-linear at the bottom end. > People have to eat. They have to pay bills. They have to be able to save > for a deposit. They have to live somewhere while they are waiting to buy > their house. Etc. > >>> >>>> Like I said it is possible but you do have to give up middle class >>>> attitudes. >>> >>>Nonsense. >>> >>>>> >>>>>Now try living on ?43 p.w. ! >>>> >>>> After my tuition and dorm fee were paid, I lived on $2/month when >>>> I went to college; the $2 included clothes washing and Tampax. >>> >>>I defy you to feed yourself on $2 a week. I defy you to feed yourself, >>>travel to and from work and afford work clothes on $2 a week. And here's the kicker--those "dorm fees" she mentioned include food. She wasn't living on $2/month, she was living on $2 + the dorm fee (includes "rent" and food), and completely without a need for any sort of transportation, since campuses are small, self-enclosed places. That was probably much closer to $200/month than $2/month. And it was the 1960s, not 2006, so call it more like $1200/month in 2006 dollar. All this makes her bluster about being able to live on $10,000/year rather meaningless, since she didn't truly had to *live* on that little (in inflation-adjusted terms) in college. Eric Lucas |
