From: S Viemeister on 14 Aug 2006 08:46
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Miguel Cruz
>>The functions performed by a mobile phone are a superset of those
>>performed by a watch (i.e., phones do everything watches do, and a whole
> except in a boring play where you phone is off but you still want
> to know if it might end soon.
My phone can be set to be silent, but left on. It will vibrate when a
call or message arrives, but won't ring.
From: JohnT on 14 Aug 2006 09:48
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> The Reid writes:
>> depends if you use a real world definition of keeping time or are
>> concerned with spurious accuracy.
> Six seconds a day is poor time by just about any definition of the
> past century or so. That's half an hour a year.
> I had an inexpensive little quartz watch from Texas Instruments for
> years that was accurate to about two seconds per year. One day it
> slipped off my wrist while I was putting it on and it hit the floor,
> and it was off by several minutes per hour thereafter. It was thus
> about a thousand times more accurate than a Rolex, and given its
> price, it provided 164,000 times more accuracy for the price.
You have told us more about yourself! No carpet in Chateau Mixi.
From: Mxsmanic on 14 Aug 2006 10:18
> You have told us more about yourself! No carpet in Chateau Mixi.
I didn't say when this happened, or where.
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Jordi on 14 Aug 2006 10:46
> Jordi wrote:
> > Tchiowa wrote:
> > In this context, it's a matter of grade and word choice.
> No, in this context it's the core of what works and what doesn't work.
In your black & white world, perhaps.
> > In terms of distance, it is, in cultural terms a trip from Athens to
> > Berlin is a greater 'distance'.
> Nonsense. The difference in culture between New York City, San
> Francisco, Miami, New Orleans are every bit as great.
No, they're not.
> > The boundaries are there for a reason.
> Hate, bigotry, a millienium of murder, how are those for starters?
There's history, you see. Are you by any chance pretending the US is
exempt from those?
> > No, we're talking two completely different things. All this came after
> > you said more or less 'what's the use of holidays if people don't have
> > money to spend', Europeans do have enough money to keep a... say
> > 'western' lifestyle without having to work 51 weeks a year, that's all.
> But their "western" lifestyle is lower than American's.
In what sense? 1.0 litre less of engine?, 4 less inches on a flat TV?
Having some real vacation weighs substantially more on overal quality
> > I don't think so if people have to wait until they're 50 to get 4 weeks
> > vacation.
> They don't. Some do, some don't.
A vast majority don't
But are you saying that you can't
> enjoy time with your family and still work????
You can, just less.
> > >
> > > Me and the official unemployment statistics.
> > Oversimplificating again. Unemployment has very deep roots.
> And the government mandated benefits that have no relation to effort
> and productivity are part of those roots.
So you believe. Many studies show an increased vacation time reduces
stress and improves productivity.
> > >
> > > OK. I'm waiting for the definition and the point.
> > "there is no way to calculate how much is excessive as it depends on
> > every individual and work position."
> Then how can you say that the amount Americans work is "excessive"?
It's less than other very productive economies (Australians have 5
weeks, Sweden has 25 days, etc.)
> > > Most. Read the studies. Vacations are times of high family violence due
> > > to stress.
> > Do you have any cite or this is 'personal experience' again?
> Lots of stats. I'll dig some out for you. Although I expect that you
> won't believe them.
No conservative think-tanks, please.
> > Once they're written down by law they're not benefits any more, they
> > become rights, and are the same for everyone. There are other benefits
> > beyond those that businesses own to motivate them.
> ???? Of course they are benefits. Just because they are government
> mandated doesn't change that.
> And since those benefits have no direct relation to productivity they
> are a burden on the employer.
They're rights, as any employer not granting them would be breaking the
law, and they're the same for everyone so they can hardly be a burden
for an individual employer.
If you are talking on an international level, you will see many of
these allegedly burdened employers competing hand to hand with other
From: barney2 on 14 Aug 2006 10:53
In article <1155554095.885415.252240(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com (Tchiowa) wrote:
> *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com>
> *Date:* 14 Aug 2006 04:14:55 -0700
> The Reid wrote:
> > Following up to Sarah Banick
> > >Hey, watch your attributions. I know that it's only the Balkans that
> > are
> > >balkanized (they are mountained?)
> > Ah, I see, you have quoted text without quote thingies. Trying to
> > trick me, hah. You were lucky I didint do a long explanation of
> > the history of Europe and the European colonies and how native
> > americans, if left alone would have become small nation states,
> > so its one of the loons who thinks Europe "Balkanised", one of
> > the ones I dont read anymore I expect, Tchowa reverse engineered
> > history, possibly?
> Balkanized is a term that came into common use during the 1990s when
> Yugoslavia came apart and the Balkans erupted into war.
It was in common use before that - I suspect it dates from the Balkan wars
of the early C20.