Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 23:54 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:c8320$455a826c$4fe72fc$12883(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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 refusing to acknowledge that there were other people who helped you get those high wages.
From: lucasea on 14 Nov 2006 23:56 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:d28e1$455a82b5$4fe72fc$12883(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: >> >>>Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> >>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>They should work for what they're worth rather than >>>>>what you think they're worth. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can you live on nothing? >>> >>>False dilemma. >>> >>>I earned very well because I was paid what my >>>work was worth. >> >> >> >> Yet you expect others to live on nothing? > > We have a number of welfare systems for those > whose work is worth nothing, so yes, certainly. But those welfare systems are intrinsically socialist. So, ironically, the only way your version of pure capitalism works, is to rely on socialistic institutions like welfare. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 15 Nov 2006 00:02 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: > >>>Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>>>unsettled wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>They should work for what they're worth rather than > >>>>>what you think they're worth. > >>>> > >>>> Can you live on nothing? > >>> > >>>False dilemma. > >>> > >>>I earned very well because I was paid what my > >>>work was worth. > >> > >> Yet you expect others to live on nothing? > > > > We have a number of welfare systems for those > > whose work is worth nothing, so yes, certainly. > > But those welfare systems are intrinsically socialist. So, ironically, the > only way your version of pure capitalism works, is to rely on socialistic > institutions like welfare. As it has always been. Graham
From: lucasea on 15 Nov 2006 00:00 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:eje2jn$am6$2(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <5eskl2pfvhmu9s6n3grm97qcfv1ntoaap6(a)4ax.com>, > JoeBloe <joebloe(a)nosuchplace.org> wrote: >>On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:21:11 +0000, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >>>Democracy is no guarantee of industrial success. >> >> >> China is far from an industrial success. Practically every >>technology they have currently was given to them or they stole it. >> >> They got their steel works and knowledge of steel from Russia. > > The goods travel from China to the US. China got the technology they > needed however they could and then applied it. This sounds like a > success. Unless, of course, you *define* that as a lack of success, just to win an argument. Eric Lucas
From: Michael A. Terrell on 15 Nov 2006 00:01
krw wrote: > > In article <455A878A.ABA115E6(a)earthlink.net>, > mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net says... > > > > You've never seen a threaded reducer that is a piece of pipe with male > > & female threads? 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. > > Nope, not a pipe. I've sen a "fitting" that reduces one size to > another. These look to me to be cast. Certainly I've never seen a > tap to make one. The ones in the picture are cast, but the ones I used were made from black iron pipe. You could see the welded seam up the side. You simply started it on the pipe, then into the die cast electrical box, and tightened both sets of threads at once. Because of the slight taper there was no chance of it going inside the box. That, and the lip on the bottom of the threaded hole. I had to do this, because the main run was 3/4", and some side runs were 1/2" . personally, I would have done it all in 3/4" or 1", but I didn't write the specs for the contract. > > 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> > > Boonton always did things against the laws of nature. Have you > ever held that tap in hand? I make my own adapters to replace missing Boonton probe parts. My next step is to make replacement probes for my other Boonton RF meters. I found a company that makes bulk brass pipe that will sell me the right size. I will have to buy a small lathe, but it will still be cheaper than buying six new probes. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |