From: Jim Ley on 22 Jul 2006 06:22
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:15:17 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>The Reid writes:
>> there were a number of new fields discovered in my lifetime,
>> there is also the issue of using shale oil at much higher prices.
>> Are the worlds resources finite?
>> Is the worlds ability to absorb pollution finite?
>I think the real limiting factor on the use of fossil fuels is the
>pollution produced by burning them, not the actual amount available in
So if the pollution was captured and stored, there'd be no problem
From: Dave Frightens Me on 22 Jul 2006 07:12
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:14:18 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>Dave Frightens Me writes:
>> Believe it or not, they are two very different things.
>They are both extremes of temperature, and their physiological effects
>cannot be eliminated by mere education.
Ha ha! I got you on that one! :o)
Squeal like a pig!
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
From: Iceman on 22 Jul 2006 09:13
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:49:50 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> >Dave Frightens Me writes:
> >> Your logic is broken. No-one said anything about heating.
> >You say that education can compensate for excessive heat. Logically,
> >then, education can also compensate for excessive cold. Thus, there's
> >no more need for heating systems than there is for air conditioning
> As cold does not mean hot, your logic is broken.
> Believe it or not, they are two very different things.
Heating is a necessity. Air conditioning is a luxury.
From: des small on 22 Jul 2006 09:55
"Stephen Dailey" <smdailey(a)seanet.com> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:50:08 -0500, erilar
> <erilarloFRY(a)SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <1153360366.190217.24550(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Again, simply not true. Workers in the US on the job more than a few
> >> years get a month vacation every year just like in Europe.
> > Not very many that's true of outside of teaching or very highly-paid
> > jobs(which teaching isn't).
> Every employer I've worked for has offered 4 weeks of vacation after a
> specified period of employment. I've never been with one employer long
> enough to earn 4 weeks, though.
I get 42 days (i.e., more than 8 weeks) at my brand new company in the
Netherlands. Of course, the higher reaches of USAian leave are widely
rumoured to be largely fictional anyway, since it is allegedly not
considered "team-spirited" to take them.
From: des small on 22 Jul 2006 10:08
Martin <me(a)privacy.net> writes:
> On 22 Jul 2006 14:55:57 +0100, des small <vonbladet(a)yahoo.co.uk>
> >"Stephen Dailey" <smdailey(a)seanet.com> writes:
> >> Every employer I've worked for has offered 4 weeks of vacation after a
> >> specified period of employment. I've never been with one employer long
> >> enough to earn 4 weeks, though.
> >I get 42 days (i.e., more than 8 weeks)
> including 12 days public holidays?
No, those are extra.
> > at my brand new company in the Netherlands.
> You have a brand new company? Congratulations!
Well, new to me.
> I had 47 days leave, incl. 12 days public holidays plus a variable
> number of extra days at Xmas because it wasn't worth keeping the
> building open between Xmas and New Year PLUS 5 days home leave every
> two years.
I can feel a new ambition coming on...