Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Oct 2006 13:17 Jamie wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > JoeBloe wrote: > > > >> Now, South Vietnam has electricity and TVs and even DVD players and > >>computers. Do you really, in your wildest dreams, think that they > >>would be in such a position has the communist regime been able to > >>overrun the South the way things were going before we bailed out the > >>French? > > > > How is that different to 'communist' China ? They seem to be doing just > > fine. > > > > Graham > > please go live there, we won't have to put up with your rumblings. I've been there. It's fine. Graham
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 13:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egl5rs$8qk_004(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <452D28C3.5463C83B(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: >>> >>> >> There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other >>> >> stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. >>> >> competition, is allowed. >>> > >>> >Are you really this stupid ? >>> >>> Based on your definition of stupid: Fortunately, yes. >> >>It appears that you're also suffering from a serious case of paranoia. > > I was paid very well for a long time to be 100% paranoid. I was > an expert in anticipating everything that can go wrong and how > to prevent it or minimize the damage. The fact that > you are able to post in this electronic medium is due to people > like me who did this work. I currently work in providing security advice to companies and in my experience, while there is some basis for the "paranoia" approach, most of the time it does not make sound business advice. The ideal thing to do is visualise the potential threat, determine its credibility (in a rational manner) and take appropriate measures based on the real threat. When I work with people who take the "be paranoid" line (as an aside: These are nearly always Americans) they more often than not create additional problems which then have to be engineered or managed out of the security solution.
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 13:23 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egl91p$8qk_002(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <452E30DC.C77C7F17(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >> There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other >>> >> >> stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. >>> >> >> competition, is allowed. >>> >> > >>> >> >Are you really this stupid ? >>> >> >>> >> Based on your definition of stupid: Fortunately, yes. >>> > >>> >It appears that you're also suffering from a serious case of paranoia. >>> >>> I was paid very well for a long time to be 100% paranoid. I was >>> an expert in anticipating everything that can go wrong and how >>> to prevent it or minimize the damage. The fact that >>> you are able to post in this electronic medium is due to people >>> like me who did this work. >> >>That's a pretty extravagant claim. > > Put in your pipe and stuff it. Perhaps you should learn who > I am. If you wanted to trade of your identity and status then you need to tell people it or hope they recognise your position from the quality of the information you post.. This is USENET. I could claim to be Tony Blair if I wanted to.
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 13:47 "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote in message news:egkugj$o0d$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:GuadncPArvmBtLDYRVnytA(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> >> wrote in message news:egibv3$99g$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se... >> > >> > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> > news:veKdnS9QEIjVIrbYRVnygA(a)pipex.net... >> >> >> >> We have non-Muslims advocating the death penalty. >> > >> > Yup, here mostly the white, skin-head alien types (who are too stupid >> > to >> > learn >> > what happened to their predecessors as soon as their great master >> > assumed >> > power). Not a serious force, there is perhaps 600 of them. >> >> Sadly not just the overtly facist propose the death penalty. Otherwise >> "right thinking" people often suggest it. Some otherwise "enlightened" >> nations currently use it. > > The main problem *I* have with the death penalty is first that it is not > possible to build a fail-safe system so one is bound to kill innocent > people. I agree. The way I see it, there is never a legitimate reason to kill _one_ innocent person and there certainly isn't a fault proof legal system anywhere I've looked. > Second, it's yet another convenient "tool" for the next bunch of Nazi's to > use > to get rid of undesirables; like the *insane* telecom surveillance laws & > systems being set up in Europe. Or euthanasia. > > >> >> If they become many through something other than a legitimate >> >> democratic >> >> process, I can't see how it would work. Open, legitimate, democracies >> >> are >> >> a >> >> very resilient form of government. >> > >> > The process is: >> > >> > Marry someone from $HOME, Import new extended family, Repeat with >> > imports. >> > >> > Denmark is A.F.A.I.K. the Only country in Europe that has shut down >> > that >> > traffic >> > by removing the right to family reunions inside Denmark - Sweden has >> > not, >> > so one >> > additional step is needed: Move to Sweden, Marry, Import, Etc. >> >> At the end of the day, immigration will always exist while people in the >> host country feel jobs are "beneath" them or too poorly paid to do. As >> the >> west becomes more developed, people are less willing to take menial or >> low >> paid jobs and more and more families need childminders and the like. > > 50% of the immigrants in Denmark are from "third-world" countries which > have a > notoriously high unemployment rate - we are spending perhaps 40% of the > entire > social security budget - this is including pensions - on the ~5-8% of the > population that are from third-world countries! > > Those people do not take menial jobs, they understand the value of plain > incompetence, a criminal record or strict adherance to religious practices > in > public to end up on some social security programme forever. (If I lived in > some > Turkish village within farting distance from the arsehole of the world, I > would > do the same). I dont know enough about Danish state support to really comment on this. Sorry. In Denmark, who carries out the menial tasks? In the UK almost all the poorly paid jobs are from third world immigrants. >> This employment void needs to be filled somehow. Without immigration, >> most >> of western Europe would struggle to fill the jobs like cleaners, maids >> etc. >> Without immigration the cost of basic goods would rise as the fruit >> pickers >> etc., needed to be paid reasonable wages. > > ... And this is somehow wrong? > > A major problem for the stability of the Danish "wellfare state" is that > one can > live equally "well" on social security as one can by taking a menial job. > The > failed immigration policies serves to perpetuate that anomaly by pushing > up > income tax (to pay for more social security) and at the same time take > away the > wage pressure from unskilled labour. Denmark is an unusual case. The cost of living there is so high it made my eyes water last time I tried to buy a beer in Copenhagen. > The result is that the low-end wages never rises (a cleaner today earn the > same > wage as I did 20 years ago when working to pay for my education), one > cannot > support a family on a menial job and the number of people that are > "unemployable" just keeps going up, because there is no hope for people at > the > low end ever getting a foot on the ladder. > > We can cut wellfare - problem is that we will then have ~900,000 destitute > people figthing over maybe 50,000 jobs, crime rates going through the roof > and > higher taxes still because of all the jails we need to build. Deadlock. > > In my opinion the only way out is to completely block immigration from > third-world countries to the EU until we have demonstrated with the people > we > have now that we can get the "integration" to work. That also means having > low > real unemployment rates - not the fake figures that politicians report to > the > OECD. I am not sure this would work. It may not be the case in Denmark, but in most of the rest of Europe there is a need for migrant labour to do the jobs no one else will do. As an example: A 100% immigration block for third world migrants in the UK would slash the available work force to do jobs such as hospital cleaners and the like. When you have more jobs than workers, pay has to rise. The NHS budgets would suffer because they would have to pay the cleaners a decent wage - or hospitals would suffer because they didn't have cleaners. Taxes would go up to fund the extra cleaners which would mean people had less money to spend on other things which would impact the retail sectors significantly as we are a nation "in debt." Yes, it is simplistic and the status quo would eventually return - higher wages, smaller workforce, but I suspect it would be a status quo people did not like. Also, I am aware of the fact that I have _no_ solution. There is a problem with immigration but it is not as big a problem as the popular media seems to make it. > And Turkey cannot join the EU - the present population growth in Turkey > would > require the EU to produce a growth in employment of 3% pro anno JUST to > absorb > the Turks. This is presently t
From: T Wake on 12 Oct 2006 13:49
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:26ori25atrrrgcs0rodmpbo0l905c8bvja(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:54:32 -0500, John Fields > <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: > >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:47:11 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >That 'alliance' - it wasn't an alliance in fact - didn't last long >>>> >anyway. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Trying to split hairs again? >>>> >>>> It most certainly was an alliance, since they signed a trade agree >>>> ment and a non-aggression pact: >>> >>>So what ? >>> >>> >>>> 19/08/1939 Germany and USSR sign a trade treaty. >>>> >>>> 23/08/1939 Germany and the USSR sign a non-aggression pact in >>>> Moscow. >>> >>>A non-aggression pact *is not* an alliance ! Don't you know what the >>>words mean ? >> >>--- >>OK, maybe you're right. From your viewpoint, how would a >>non-aggression pact signal a non-alliance? >> > > He probably thinks it's like them saying "We don't like you, but > we'll be nice and sign this agreement..." And you think it isn't. Odd that, isn't it? |