Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Nov 2006 07:16 In article <456AF465.7F8B8D0F(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >> Do you really want >> me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still >> can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? > >The issue of self-sufficiency is entirely another matter. What do you do when >there's a shortage of jobs ? 4 million short in Thatcher's days ( around 10% >unemployment ). You stop duct-taping the thumbs of the people who know how to create wealth. You stop governmental support for unions who refuse to close money-losing job sites. You stop supporting people so they need to work in order to buy stuff. You stop trying to run all business, manufacturing, and startups and let non-political people do that work. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 28 Nov 2006 07:25 In article <1164664607.476564.201160(a)j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <1163509645.701125.130030(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >> hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >hill(a)rowland.org wrote: >> >> Winfield Hill wrote: >> >> > >> >> > 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >> >> >> >> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >> >> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >> >> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >> >> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >> > >> >Amazing, now nearing 9000 posts and still going strong. >> >Furthermore, a subtle point, the posts haven't strayed far >> >from the original post in terms of individual thread-segment >> >lengths, so Google Groups tree view still nicely handles all >> >the pieces in a narrow sidebar. >> >> Really?!!! That's interesting. > >Amazing! That was post 10873. All nicely archived in Google, so that >future generations may not lose one word. I worry about that. One little buyout and the whole archive can be gone. > The subject line view has >hiccupped a bit though. Can you describe the hiccup? Is it another field-too-small problem? One of the things about this thread is nobody did the stupido thing of constantly changing the subject field contents. I had another long conversation where two people did this and everything became a mess w.r.t. my display format. > >I smirk at those who malign Google groups as the new AOL ... all >10,000+ posts may be easily ignored; apparently this is causing some >other interfaces some difficulty, though. This one is merely a minor stress test. I tried using Google's newsgroup service at the library and did not like it. I don't know if that was due to it being different or their choices of how to display the tree were anathema to me. Have you really been following this thread? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 07:39 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Do you really want > >> me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still > >> can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? > > > >The issue of self-sufficiency is entirely another matter. What do you do when > >there's a shortage of jobs ? 4 million short in Thatcher's days ( around 10% > >unemployment ). > > You stop duct-taping the thumbs of the people who know how > to create wealth. You reckon ex-mine workers are entrepreneurs ? All 100,000 of them ? > You stop governmental support for unions > who refuse to close money-losing job sites. There never was any government support for unions. The issue wasn't about loss-making either. > You stop supporting > people so they need to work in order to buy stuff. You stop > trying to run all business, manufacturing, and startups and let > non-political people do that work. How do you find 4 million jobs 'overnight'. The fact of the amttter is that Thatcher deliberately made them unemployed as a political tactic. Graham
From: Eeyore on 28 Nov 2006 07:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "Edward Green" <spamspamspam3(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > >Amazing! That was post 10873. All nicely archived in Google, so that > >future generations may not lose one word. > > I worry about that. One little buyout and the whole archive can > be gone. It already has been bought out. It was deja.com before google. Graham
From: hill on 28 Nov 2006 07:44
Winfield Hill wrote: > Winfield Hill wrote: >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>> Winfield Hill wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing. >>>> >>>> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most >>>> of the posts were under the original subject title. This >>>> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress >>>> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc. >>> >>> Never have so many, said so much, about so little! ;-) >>> >>> I heard of one long flame war that passed 10K posts, >>> but I never found out which newsgroup. >> >> We passed 9000 on the 14th, and are now within 100 posts >> of 10,000. Keep up the good work guys, you can do it! > > Google Groups is having a little trouble with this long thread. > The message-heading list said there were 9999 posts, so > I hoped to make the 10,000th post, but upon loading all the > article references in the left sidebar, it showed more than > 10,050 posts, so I missed the opportunity. > > But, good job guys and gals, over 10,000 posts, and still > going strong. And still on topic more or less. I've only > read a smattering of the posts here and there, and there's > a minimum of flaming SFAICS. Nice to see. Still going strong, over 11,300 posts, no sign of slowing. |