Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 17:36 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:5mM6h.10670$yl4.1299(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:4f2aa$455b6b56$4fe757a$19388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:ejf0uq$8ss_002(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>In article <GZadnR1moYq8q8fYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>><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? How much of a deposit is >>>>>normally >>>>>put down? >>>>> >>>>>I know you meant long term planning, but earning minimum wage does not >>>>>lend >>>>>itself to that kind of living. 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. >>>> >>>>You don't have to borrow. The Portuguese around here make it a >>>>family affair. Everybody in the extended family works, and then >>>>they buy a house for cash. No borrowing. Now the family has >>>>a house to live in and they begin to save for the next house. >>>>Eventually everybody has their own house. >>> >>> >>> Blimey. How socialist can you get. Bloody commies need to be kicked out. >> >> That's a family, not government. It is still further from Pure Capitalism than an NHS is. >>> However it doesn't solve the problem. It is great for people who are >>> lucky enough to be in that situation, however they are not in the >>> majority. Also it is not stable, nor predictable. What happens if there >>> is an accident and a house burns down killing six wage earners. End of >>> the line for the family. This is still living on an economic knife edge. >> >> The important premise when dealing with the >> sword of Damocles isn't that the sword will >> fall, only that there is a perception that >> it might. Interesting. Irrelevant, but interesting. >>> I am still waiting for you to explain how the _average_ person on >>> minimum wage can live in the manner you suggest. You keep coming up with >>> esoteric, _socialistic_, methods people use to circumvent the >>> impossibility of trying to live on $200 a week. >> >>> Your first "defence" was about people saving to buy their own house, now >>> it is communal ownership and living. Make your mind up. >> >> Ged rid of your middle class attitudes. Then understand >> that rural America works differently from your UK >> based worldview. Aha, unsettled continues the "Class War." I am glad the communist manifesto is still dear to your heart comrade unsettled. It is funny that capitalistic democracies create and perpetuate this "middle class" that some of you seem to object to. Why do you rate the proletariat as more "honest" and "hard working?" Is it just because of what Engles wrote? >> Lucas lives in WV. Betcha he rubs shoulders with people >> earning under $200 a week and doing just fine. > > Well, actually, no, I've moved. Still have the house, though. Contrary > to what you seem to think, the poverty line in WV is similar to the rest > of the country, and that $200/wk is well below it. People making that > amount do not "[do] just fine" in WV or anywhere. They exist in squallor. Which, given unsettled desire to get into some weird semi-Stalinist world where the proletariat run everything and live in hovels, just means they have thrown off their bourgeois affectations. Unsettled has no bourgeois attitudes. He would use a PC and connect to the internet but that is middle class. Like most of the early twentieth century Soviet revolutionaries, whose ideas Unsettled unwittingly adopts, he feels that _others_ should throw off their middle class lifestyles a
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 18:24 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:9WL6h.10665$yl4.3580(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:paOdnV3oDeIr_MbYRVnysA(a)pipex.net... >> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>news:iiH6h.25566$TV3.5304(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ejf5am$8qk_004(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>>In article <8aCdnbqWfskwvMfYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ejccrn$8ss_006(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <BN06h.5439$IR4.708(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, >>>>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:45586F70.5FF100EE(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >>>>>>>>>>of housecleaning and they get it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They do ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I'm sure they wouldn't here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's certainly not the norm in the US. It might be $50, (I've heard >>>>>>>>smaller >>>>>>>>number, in the $30 - $40 range) but it's not for 15 minutes >>>>>>>>work--typically >>>>>>>>it is for cleaning a whole house, which, including vacuuming, >>>>>>>>mopping, >>>>>>>>cleaning the loo, is probably more like an hour or two. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I have a 4-room house. If one is healthy, it takes 15 minutes to do >>>>>>>the usual cleaning. >>>>>> >>>>>>Blimey. I am going to cut this out and give it to my wife. >>>>>> >>>>>>I can only suspect your standards of "the usual cleaning" are different >>>>>>to >>>>>>other peoples. >>>> >>>>Ah, *now* we get the story behind the wild extrapolations. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Perhaps. If you don't have carpeting it takes about two minutes to >>>>>vacuum if you don't move furniture. >>>> >>>>Most people have carpet, and most people have the area under the >>>>furniture cleaned. Next assumption. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>There are ways to do cleaning efficiently. The pros have all the >>>>>tricks. Part of the habit of living is be in contant pickup >>>>>mode. Reduces cleaning times by a lot. >>>> >>>>And why would somebody who has someone else clean their house get in >>>>this habit? If they're not doing the cleaning, there's no incentive to. >>> >>>Logic rarely enters into /BAHs assumptions and extrapolations. >>> >>>As a side note,what sort of surface area would a 4 bedroom house in the >>>US have? >> >>NB she said 4 rooms, not 4 bedrooms. > > > Aha. Well spotted. Sorry, I misread it. > > >>That would typically mean bedroom, kitchen, living room and bathroom. >>That's probably on the order of 1000 sq ft. > > > Cool, 1000 sq ft in 15 minutes is getting closer to reality. The minimum size new house permitted by the codes in my area is 600 square feet. Compare to the codified fSU and Warsaw Pact area permitted per person in a family. You'll find our 600 ft^2 similar to that allowed for a married childless couple in the world of the Warsaw Pact. The difference is that in our case, that's the minimum sized house where the Warsaw Pact nations penalized people (a tax of sorts) for having excess square footage. In the really bad old days they might have put some stranger in your home to live with you if you had enough excess space to house another person under their standards. >>4 bedroom houses are becoming positively enormous here. Typical areas I >>see in the newspaper are as much as 2500 sq ft. Older ones might be as >>little as 2000 sq ft. When I drive through suburban areas that are being >>heavily developed, I'm always shocked at the ubiquitous enormity of the >>houses. >> >>Eric Lucas >> > > >
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 18:54 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:PiM6h.10669$yl4.1260(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:4dc84$455b6880$4fe757a$19289(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>news:63x6h.6421$Sw1.4642(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:455A8441.4333989A(a)hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>JoeBloe wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>There's a big difference between reasonable >>>>>>>profits coupled with a good value product, and gouge-o-matic >>>>>>>practices. One is good old fashioned American capitalism and one is >>>>>>>outright theft. Do you know which is which? I have doubts that you >>>>>>>could. >>>>>> >>>>>>LOL ! >>>>> >>>>>I'd still like to hear his theory of who or what gets to determine what >>>>>a "reasonable profit" is. Unless his answer is "the free market", it >>>>>sounds like price controls, to me. (Ironically, it is the free market >>>>>that has led prices to rise so high.) I've never heard of price >>>>>controls in pure capitalism. >>>> >>>> >>>>"Fair profit" does not exist in pure capitalism either. Fair profit can >>>>not be deemed by anything other than price controls - the market doesn't >>>>recognise it's existence. >>>> >>>>JoeBloe is another Socialist in denial. >>> >>>Reasonable profit is a small margin above the >>>then current cost of money. >> >>Define "small". More importantly, who gets to decide for the country? >>It's starting to sound like "price controls". How exactly is that >>capitalist? > > > Even when unsettled tries to justify the socialist price controls with his > "small margin" comment it comes out socialist. The original error starts with you two clowns failing to appreciate that capitalism has a soul. To define a term "fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to embrace freely and without external (read governmental) imposition. > Blinded by his desire to denigrate what he thinks is "communism" or > "socialism" he is no longer aware of where his thinking is taking him. It took me to introducing a concept that Marxist socialists like you and Lucas deny because it unravels your rabid dislike of capitalism. > There are no "small margins" in pure capitalism. (The nonsensical nature of > his post has been ignored to give him the benefit of the doubt) Well about time since you've been on the receiving end of that benefit for quite some time. It is obvious from this rather lunatical post of yours that goiving you any benefit whatever was an error. You two idiots appreciated the underdog syndrome which prevails among human beings. The moment that a former hero is seen doing well financially society as a whole seeks out the next underdog, abandoning their former favorite in the blink of an eye. This leads to an automatic cap on profits experienced by business in a capitalistic society. The only exceptions are in cases where there is patent or trademark protection, such as we see with Microsoft. Even then, competitive products emerge. <http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0232163> Last spring I bought one of these because I needed a small server and I already owned the OS I intended to use on the server. Before I dumped Linspire off the HD I played a bit on the internet with it. While this version lacks a lot of the unix features I have come to appreciate, as a windows style internet machine it performs admirably and, I would think, it is probably virus free because no one is writing malware for this OS. Additionally it doesn't have the gaping security holes for which Microsoft is so famous that we're forced into paying more for protection software during the OS life cycle than we originally paid for the OS. Apple, Linux, and Linspire alternatives haven't hurt Microsoft, but eventually the pressures of competitive products will have an effect. Your Marxist socialist perceptions of a world in which uncontrolled runaway capitalism presents the greatest of all available evils is just plain wrong. But you'll both wiggle, wriggle, and complain about this post as you always do. Feast well during this feeding frenzy of yours. Communism took the fall so your Marxist socialism won't be very far behind. I've always thought people like you two quite probably fit at least marginally into the B-W autistic spectrum. I suppose that's because I prefer to think of you unable to think any better than to believe that the posts you two have made arise out of essential dishonesty.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 15 Nov 2006 18:59 On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:08:57 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:05:36 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>> >>> >>>>My own brother, some years back, was almost refused care at a full >>>>care hospital, Meridian Park, just off of the Nyberg Rd exit of I5, >>>>south of Portland and Tigard. It was an emergency case, he'd >>>>swallowed broken glass and was in severe pain at the time. But he had >>>>no insurance and those at the desk simply refused to let him talk to a >>>>doctor about it. It was only because there was an attorney in the >>>>waiting room, who stood up and shouted at the receptionist that he >>>>would personally bring suit against them unless they helped my brother >>>>see a doctor right away, that they capitulated and let him speak to a >>>>doctor. When I got down there (I hadn't been called until after that >>>>event), the doctor told me that if it had been as little as just two >>>>more hours, my brother would certainly have been dead. They got to >>>>him in time, though. But not easily. >>> >>>That's shocking. >>> >>>Graham >> >> It is. I'm sure it's not the only such case in the US, either. It >> should never happen, at all. > >I certainly empathize. > >However, where human systems are concerned there are >failures that have some tears shed over them, and >everything goes on as it has, because human systems >are never 100%. That kind of statement, true as it may be, applies to anything and says exactly nothing. It's simply always true and carries no objective value. The specific case should not have happened. Imperfect as humans may be admitted as being, this particular case is a simple failure that didn't even have to happen and wouldn't have, in other existing systems in place and operating already, today. Excusing the specifics by moving to a useless extreme that applies to anything and says nothing doesn't help us progress at all. >Check under UK's NHS, for example, how many die annually >of a superbug which came into being in hospital settings. I see you are just changing the subject. Okay. So let's go there. In the US, see: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/healthDis.html "In hospitals alone, HAIs account for an estimated 2 million infections, 90,000 deaths, and $4.5 billion in excess health care costs annually." So rather than hand-wave and talk in meaningless abstracts, let's get down to brass tacks and see where that takes us. Eh? >The obvious acceptable number should be 0% failure in >such cases. The facts are somewhat different, and it >will not be fixed. Irrelevant. That kind of reasoning would say that there is no point in doing anything or caring about anything. But you are just arguing from extremes, and I'm not terribly interested in discussions of that kind -- they are the kind I get from ideologues without any sense of reality. To suggest that since we cannot achieve "0% failure" and that therefore, "Oh, well. That's life," just doesn't cut it with me. Especially in this particular case. There was and is no escuse for that kind of thing. Not once, let alone more. >Neither will most of the shortfalls of the medical >care business in the USA. So we should do nothing by your logic. Nice. >The reasoning in both cases is similar. No idea what you mean, here. Jon
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 18:59
T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:5mM6h.10670$yl4.1299(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:4f2aa$455b6b56$4fe757a$19388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ejf0uq$8ss_002(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <GZadnR1moYq8q8fYnZ2dnUVZ8qmdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>><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? How much of a deposit is >>>>>>normally >>>>>>put down? >>>>>> >>>>>>I know you meant long term planning, but earning minimum wage does not >>>>>>lend >>>>>>itself to that kind of living. 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. >>>>> >>>>>You don't have to borrow. The Portuguese around here make it a >>>>>family affair. Everybody in the extended family works, and then >>>>>they buy a house for cash. No borrowing. Now the family has >>>>>a house to live in and they begin to save for the next house. >>>>>Eventually everybody has their own house. >>>> >>>> >>>>Blimey. How socialist can you get. Bloody commies need to be kicked out. >>> >>>That's a family, not government. > > > It is still further from Pure Capitalism than an NHS is. When you stop distinguishing between what a family does for their members and government interference in what is pressntly private industry then I have no option but to believe your posts encompass essential dishonesty to make your points. snip |