Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Keith W on 2 Aug 2006 08:53 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b371d2pv299mangmm4flj0o7q9ieodh7q7(a)4ax.com... > mrtravel writes: > >> How did you calculatae a 3.3 percent chance over 40 years would come out >> to 74 percent. > > If 3.3 percent of the population changes jobs each year, then there's > a 96.7% chance that a person will not change jobs each year. Only if you assume that each person only changes jobs once per year. When younger there were years when I had 3 or 4 jobs Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Keith W on 2 Aug 2006 08:55 "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:li71d2p4odj5naos9dg33bf1mtc7t8hmmr(a)4ax.com... > Keith W writes: > >> The question is addressed to you not them. You are the >> one making the claim after all. > > I don't know what their contigency plans are, but eventually they'll > need more energy than they are able to buy on the free market. > That was the point I made, you claimed their contingency plans involved taking energy from someone else. Please clarify who you think they can invade to grab this energy. Keith ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Sid9 on 2 Aug 2006 08:57 Mxsmanic wrote: > Tchiowa writes: > >> That's what the phone company tried to argue. It was broken up and >> service improved. > > The monopoly on the local loop has never been broken. And the phone > company is now unbreaking itself, becoming exactly what it was before. > >> Etc, Etc, > > Examples? > >> Goal? They may talk about goal but the reality is completely >> different. Tell me the government entity that you think provides >> good service. > > It's easier to list government entities that do not provide good > service, but even then, nothing springs to mind offhand, except > perhaps ephemeral structures that exist for reasons other than the > ones nominally given for them, such as the DHS. > >> And didn't I say that monopolies are not normally good? > > Perhaps, but some things have to be monopolies. You cannot have ten > sets of wires providing electricity to your home, or three sets of > pipes providing water. > >> That's why monopolies are generally bad. Including government >> monopolies. > > But some monopolies cannot be avoided, and they should not be private. There is a myth that government can't perform as well as private industry. It's a myth. Private industry is no more nor less competent than government entities. It depends on who's watching. In private industry nobody's watching. So nobody knows how efficient or inefficient they are. Nor is it publicized)
From: Dave Frightens Me on 2 Aug 2006 09:00 On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:35:52 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dave Frightens Me writes: > >> It's a relative thing, not absolute. Professionals can demand more >> money, because they are professionals. > >How much more money can they demand? You have to put figures to this >argument at some point, or it serves no purpose. Why? More is more than less, and is preferred. That's all that matters. >> Why must there be a dividing line? > >Because if there isn't, there is no distinction between professionals >and non-professionals, which invalidates your position. You indicated >that there _was_ a dividing line, but you've thus far refused to >quantify it. Show me where I indicated that. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: Dave Frightens Me on 2 Aug 2006 09:02
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:36:25 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Dave Frightens Me writes: > >> You asked "What does that make >> [Doctors without Borders]?". That can only be read as the >> organisation. > >Then why do the British refer to organizations with plural forms of >verbs? You should know the reason, if you teach the language. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- -- |