What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 1 Apr 2005 09:34 You know, guys, whining about unions isn't very relevant to the theory of relativity. Yes, I know we all have been guilty of the sin of off-topicality... -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Apr 2005 09:00 In article <d2jm4r09or(a)drn.newsguy.com>, stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >You know, guys, whining about unions isn't very relevant to the >theory of relativity. It's very relavent or do you enjoy having the cranks repeat themselves ad nauseum? What are you going to do when the guy is supposed to maintain GPS has been taught by these union members and you have a high priority need to get 3000 miles away today? > >Yes, I know we all have been guilty of the sin of off-topicality... You're suffering from short-term thinking ;-). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: TomGee on 1 Apr 2005 15:53 Mitch/Nick, I am not confused as to your question. I understood it precisely based on your subject title, "What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus". There is no ambiguity in that question. TomGee
From: Bilge on 1 Apr 2005 16:16 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com: > >Of course. That what unions do; socialism and anarchism >stirred by zealots. That has to be one of most self-inconsistent statements ever posted. I don't suppose it has occured to you that anarchism is essentially libertarianism with a vengence while socialism is about as diametrically opposed to that as possible? What happened, did everyone but the knee-jerk phony conservatives gang up on the corporate handout scheme by employing the rather capitalist concept of negotiating a contract for a service (i.e., labor) by leveraging some assets (i.e., the labor pool)? I find it rather bizarre that anyone could claim to favor free enterprise, but only when the contracts are beneficial to the officers of a corporation. Personally, I think people deserve more consideration than copyright on a dvd. A union is nothing but a business whose services are employees and which negotiates contracts at the rates and terms th market will bear. Socialism only enters the picture when the government artificially limits the scope of those contracts. To paraphrase the usual trite phrase, ``if enough people didn't become union members, they unions would go out of business,'' just like if enough people didn't want hazardous chemicals in their rivers, they stop buying products from companies that dump toxic wastes into rivers.''
From: Ken S. Tucker on 1 Apr 2005 16:42
Bilge et al... About education, consider it's reasons and evolution. In the post-institutional (1930's) the primary responsibility for education fell on Father and Mother. Father and Mother would spend time with both, and in a loving enviroment you got smacked for making dumb decisions, but Mommy and Daddy spent good time as you helped with the chores and learned the trade. WW2 by the nature of that combat, forced a de-personalization, that we can term "institutionalization" where the individuality was substituted as a number in a group. The institution (see root instant), subbed the primary education from parent to instant schools, as the cold war dragged on, the alleged necessity to have a State contolled education, was legally enacted to subvert parents role in education. Now my point is, we are in a very institutionalized culture, and the +/- of that needs to be recognized w.r.t. traditional means of education of the 30's. By traditional, adults enjoy discussions with younger people, and likewise, because that imparts values and principles. I would say, that there is a boost of culture if the Dad and Mom spend lots of time with son and daughter telling them about what they've learned and what they know and why they think some things are true. Institutions and corporations do their best, as I've found, and a positively managed organization benefits everyone. Regards Ken S. Tucker |