From: S Viemeister on
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
>>lot more).
> 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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> 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
JohnT writes:

> 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

Tchiowa wrote:
> 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
of life.

> >
> > 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
'unburdened' ones.


From: barney2 on
In article <1155554095.885415.252240(a)>,
tchiowa2(a) (Tchiowa) wrote:

> *From:* "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)>
> *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.