On 11 Sep 2008 at 17:33, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
> But that choice places almost all of the power in the hands of the
> employer as far as deciding the terms of the agreement. The choice
There are plenty of ways to ensure that while someone has the "free
choice" to leave a company, they're sc
> This discussion is obviously getting neither of us
> anywhere. Fine,
> whatever, my patience with this thread has now expired.
> The only
> thing I will say at this point is that my silence does not
> imply
> agreement.
> "Listen, when you get home tonight, you're gonna
> be confronted b
> I think Bruce somewhat exaggerates the issue, but if
> you're familiar with
> the fiduciary obligations of a for-profit corporation to
> its shareholders,
> you surely realize that present law offers strong
> disincentives to engage in
> any activity that can't be justified as protecting or
> inc
> I have no ideology, unless you consider live and let live
> to be one. If you
> are asking whether I believe in helping people who cannot
> help themselves,
> I cannot give you a generalized answer, it depends on the
> situation. The
> choice is not whether to help someone or not, it is rather
>
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I believe that how a society treats its most vulnerable is a much more
> appropriate measure. How does your ideology address that?
I have no ideology, unless you consider live and let live to be one. If you
are asking whether I believe in helping people who c
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:27 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It is literally *illegal* for a publicly
> > traded corporation not to take every advantage of profitable market
> > strategy that it can,
>
> Cite please? I know of know "liter
John Williams wrote:
>
> It appears that you are only using the measure of dispersion of wealth.
> I mentioned two things: standard of living (which is generally an average
> or median statistic) and a free society. I did not mention it, but another
> measure of wealth would be how well-off are th
On Sep 11, 2008, at 8:48 PM, John Williams wrote:
>> Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them.
>
> If you say so. You are obviously an expert entrepreneur. But no
> doubt your skills are more useful telling people what they should do
> than what they do not have the intelligenc
By the way, another excellent economics book relevant to our discussion and
requiring little background economics knowledge is "The Power of Productivity:
Wealth, Poverty, and the Threat to Global Stability" by William W. Lewis. This
book discusses how rules and policy affect productivity in a nu
Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Most of them already know -- they don't need me to tell them.
If you say so. You are obviously an expert entrepreneur. But no
doubt your skills are more useful telling people what they should do
than what they do not have the intelligence or ability to do.
>
On Sep 11, 2008, at 6:27 PM, John Williams wrote:
> Yes, people are too stupid and inept to improve their productivity
> unless
> the evil employers help them. And I see business owners going around
> all the time telling their employees to reduce revenue and decrease
> their productivity.
If y
Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As long
> as there's an unregulated-labor pool outside that scope, organized
> labor is fighting a losing battle because it is still ultimately only
> pricing itself out of the market.
Seems the obvious solution is to not price oneself out of the market
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
>
> O-kay. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a few deep relaxing
> breaths . . . ?
>
Why fscking bother? The world will end anyway, and we are all
going to Hell.
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listin
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it is not a question of putting
> a foreign worker out of a job. there is no reason why their government can
> not
> generate a strong economy to employ their own workers, especially in nations
> that are wealthy in natural resources.
What exactly did
> > > you can not assume that all "consensual
> deals" are "fair", and should be
> > allowed without any regulation.
> > Jon
> > Yes, I can. If it is legal and consensual, then you
> have no right to impose
> > your opinions on others.
> That begs the question of what should be legal, so it is
>
At 05:35 PM Wednesday 9/10/2008, John Williams wrote:
>Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Feel free to return to whatever you were doing before I jumped in.
>
>Thank you, your highness!
O-kay. Maybe it's time for everyone to take a few deep relaxing
breaths . . . ?
Put The Mouse Down S
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Feel free to return to whatever you were doing before I jumped in.
Thank you, your highness!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Perhaps you didn't understand. "Begging the question" is a logical
> problem
> > with an argument.
>
> Perhaps. Or perhaps it begs the question, why do you think your opinion is
>
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Perhaps you didn't understand. "Begging the question" is a logical problem
> with an argument.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it begs the question, why do you think your opinion is
more useful than the law and consensual agreement between others, your
highness?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > That begs the question of what should be legal, so it is not a useful
> > argument.
>
> Rigghhht. So much less useful than it should be whatever you say it
> should
> be, your h
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 1:36 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > you can not assume that all "consensual deals" are "fair", and should be
> allowed
> > without any regulation.
>
> Yes, I can. If it is legal and consensual, then you have no rig
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you can not assume that all "consensual deals" are "fair", and should be
> allowed
> without any regulation.
Yes, I can. If it is legal and consensual, then you have no right to impose your
opinions on others.
> exploit resources and labor in
> undevelop
> > Because that's what I hear when I read that the
> free market is *the* way.
> > But you have backed off from the definite. ;-)
> Backed off? The discussion you referenced was about how
> I (or Jon, or someone else) would choose to allocate
> resources. _The_
> way _I_ would do it is a free
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Because that's what I hear when I read that the free market is *the* way.
> But you have backed off from the definite. ;-)
Backed off? The discussion you referenced was about how
I (or Jon, or someone else) would choose to allocate resources. _The_
way _I_ wo
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:09 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > *The" way? Or *a* way?
>
> A way. The best way I've seen. But if you know of a better way,
> I'd certainly be interested.
>
> > There is no objective measure for appropriat
Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *The" way? Or *a* way?
A way. The best way I've seen. But if you know of a better way,
I'd certainly be interested.
> Surely it is generally accepted that the free market fails sometimes.
Surely. How could an emergent system be perfect?
> Otherwise we would
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:04 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> The free market is the way to efficiently allocate resources, and cash
> returns
> provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You disagreed, but
> have
> still not offered an alternative.
*The" way? Or *a* w
Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>
>> How much carbon is released into the atmosphere from a
>> cremation?
>
> Ah, so you got the context, but you missed the irony!~)
> Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but I expect it is more
> energy efficient than cryonics, or to bury bodies in expensive
> caske
William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The invisible hand is as much a belief as invisible pink unicorns. The
> 'free market' is just the composite action of people who are mostly
> very stupid and ignorant.
Hmmm, I thought that was obvious enough to go without saying, but
apparently not.
On 10 Sep 2008, at 01:04, John Williams wrote:
>
> The free market is the way to efficiently allocate resources, and
> cash returns
> provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You disagreed,
> but have
> still not offered an alternative.
The invisible hand is as much a belief as
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> When did I say, "individuals may own ANY amount of property"? I think that
> owning 10 houses (like the McCains) is way too much, but one house per family
> is
> about right, but that is only my opinion. My forty acres is in French Gulch,
> California a
> > Isn't cremation is better for the environment;
> "ashes to ashes"?
> How much carbon is released into the atmosphere from a
> cremation?
Ah, so you got the context, but you missed the irony!~) Unfortunately I don't
know the answer, but I expect it is more energy efficient than cryonics, or
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Isn't cremation is better for the environment; "ashes to ashes"?
How much carbon is released into the atmosphere from a cremation?
> I will be delighted to answer your
> questions when you are able to state them in context...
The problem is that I am ap
> > You might have problems with the part where you bury
> yourself
> Good point. I doubt there would be a shortage of volunteers
> to help me with the problem, however. "We will bury you".
Isn't cremation is better for the environment; "ashes to ashes"?
> > Sarcasm is the lingua franca of t
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> h... what goes around comes around...
No, that would be x*x + y*y = 1
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> > You're saying that what you wrote earlier
> doesn't come up to the level of B.S.?
> Now you're twisting my words. Straighten up and try a
> linear curve fit!
h... what goes around comes around...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/l
Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You're saying that what you wrote earlier doesn't come up to the level of
> B.S.?
Now you're twisting my words. Straighten up and try a linear curve fit!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinf
At 02:34 PM Monday 9/8/2008, John Williams wrote:
> Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > You obviously have B.S. in statistics.
>
>You obviously are overestimating me.
You're saying that what you wrote earlier doesn't come up to the level of B.S.?
. . . ronn! :)
_
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it's not just about population demographics; it is about large carbon
> footprints
> due to capitalism, greed, and materialism. western populations are probably
> one
> of the worse offenders, but the asian countries are rapidly catching up with
> our
> > > i think it is already too late, considering
> humanity's greed, and lack of foresight.
> >Could be. I had a heck of a time getting a statistically significant
> >r-squared with a 4th order curve fit to the modified Malthus
> >equation, particularly with the stiffness of the inverse-greed p
Ronn! Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> You obviously have B.S. in statistics.
You obviously are overestimating me. Try a non-linear curve fit.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 09:19 PM Wednesday 9/3/2008, John Williams wrote:
> Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > i think it is already too late, considering humanity's greed, and lack of
> > foresight.
>
>Could be. I had a heck of a time getting a statistically significant
>r-squared with a 4th order curve fit to
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> i think it is already too late, considering humanity's greed, and lack of
> foresight.
Could be. I had a heck of a time getting a statistically significant r-squared
with a 4th order curve fit to the modified Malthus equation, particularly with
the stiffne
> > Well, that certainly explains a lot. Where did you
> find the evidence for this opinion?
> Here and there on the web, and my own calculations.
> Hopefully I didn't
> move the decimal the wrong way. If we only have 0.05 years,
> then I need to get a few things done...
i think it is already too
Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, that certainly explains a lot. Where did you find the evidence for
> this opinion?
Here and there on the web, and my own calculations. Hopefully I didn't
move the decimal the wrong way. If we only have 0.05 years, then I
need to get a few things do
John Williams wrote:
> Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> it will become much, much worse in this century. some
>> estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then
>> the
>> problem will correct itself...
>>
>
> I think those estimates may be a bit off. M
> > it can be said that the human race has been at war
> with the environment
> > since the agricultural revolution,
> The environment was trying to eat us long before the dawn
> of history.
> Nick
okay, but man didn't start kicking ass until after recorded history...
jon
__
On 04/09/2008, at 6:19 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> Ok, but, above, you only list the _preys_. Where are the big
> predators?
> There ain't no big predators in North America except Man.
Puma, several bear species, wolves, alligators...
Charlie
___
> Ok, but, above, you only list the _preys_. Where are the
> big predators?
> There ain't no big predators in North America except
> Man. Even if the West didn't invade America
> (imagine that the Black Death had wiped out 99%
> of Afro-Eurasia) and the natives hadn't acquired
> gunpowder, how c
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> it can be said that the human race has been at war with the environment
> since the agricultural revolution,
The environment was trying to eat us long before the dawn of history.
Nick
_
Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>
>> I think it began much earlier, as soon as the
>> hunter-gatherers
>> learned that they could mass-murder their predators, and
>> raised to the top of the food chain.
>
> both then, alberto, but when did the population of hunter gathers
> reach the level when it had a
> > it can be said the human race has been at war
> with the
> > environment since the agricultural revolution,
> I think it began much earlier, as soon as the
> hunter-gatherers
> learned that they could mass-murder their predators, and
> raised to the top of the food chain.
both then, alberto
e food chain.
In one of the Uplift books, the Galactics say that self-uplift
is impossible because as soon as a species gains enough
brainpower to become pre-sentient, it wages (and wins) a war
on the environment, effectively destroying the planet and
itself.
Albe
> > it will become much, much worse in this century. some
> > estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four
> more years, and then the problem will correct itself...
> I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5
> years.
> Oh, wait, I just checked my work, and I seem to
Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it will become much, much worse in this century. some
> estimates are that we will reach critical mass in four more years, and then
> the
> problem will correct itself...
I think those estimates may be a bit off. My estimate is 5 years.
Oh, wait, I just
the "problem". Simply deciding
> to go to war on the
> environment will not help, and on balance, will probably
> cause harm.
it can be said that the human race has been at war with the environment since
the agricultural revolution, but it only started to become a serious probl
56 matches
Mail list logo
