Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote:

Perpetually unemployed troll/netkook/pedophile/psychopath Michael Voight "mrtravel" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


Keith W writes:



If you use 200 kw hours , your meter records it, they push that
much onto the grid and you pay them for it.


How can they do that in time to cover your usage?


How do banks work?
When you write a check, does the money immediately get removed from your
account?


How do jails work?

nosense cut out

So, if you are telling the truth, Greg, then anyone could simply check
out this information on the official California's Megan's list website
, correct?

Now, since the information can not be located there, Greg, I guess this
makes your statements untrue, correct? Of course, you know that some
people will believe whatever they read, whether or not there is any
basis of fact.

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:12:13 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


Keith W writes:



If you use 200 kw hours , your meter records it, they push that
much onto the grid and you pay them for it.


How can they do that in time to cover your usage?


How do banks work?
When you write a check, does the money immediately get removed from your
account?


You not only bit his hook, you tightened it.

Correct. I should have mention credit cards or overdraft protection.
In any case, the money doesn't have to be in your bank account before
you spend it.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Mxsmanic

Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor
people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was
to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist
acts, and other minor infractions.

The people being held did not generally do any of these
things--although it's true that the definition of "terrorist acts" has
become very broad.

For Tchiowa its enough that they are accused or suspected, why
would you need a trial?

As it always is with prisoners of war. The fact that they were captured
on a battleground is all that it takes.

The rest of it we learned from the way you Brits treated the Irish.

Tchiowa wrote:

The Reid wrote:

Following up to Mxsmanic


Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor
people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was
to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist
acts, and other minor infractions.

The people being held did not generally do any of these
things--although it's true that the definition of "terrorist acts" has
become very broad.

For Tchiowa its enough that they are accused or suspected, why
would you need a trial?


As it always is with prisoners of war. The fact that they were captured
on a battleground is all that it takes.


What if they were present in the area, but weren't involved?

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:01:03 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:12:13 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:


Keith W writes:



If you use 200 kw hours , your meter records it, they push that
much onto the grid and you pay them for it.


How can they do that in time to cover your usage?


How do banks work?
When you write a check, does the money immediately get removed from your
account?


You not only bit his hook, you tightened it.

Correct. I should have mention credit cards or overdraft protection.
In any case, the money doesn't have to be in your bank account before
you spend it.

Woosh.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Jordi wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Jordi wrote:

Note the 'some'.

Exactly right. Each employer can do as he chooses. And if I am looking
for a job and one employer makes a better offer than another I choose
him. So the other employer has to "catch up" if he wants to compete.

So? It's irrelevant to what we were talking about here.

Wrong. It's the crux of what we're talking about. Allowing the market
to work makes things better over time. Distorting the market like they
do in Europe will eventually have a cost. It already has.

In terms of Purchasing Power Parity, two EU members are above the US in
GDP per capita (Luxembourg and Ireland).

First, note that PPP is a subjective measure. And particularly when you
get to things like travel (this is a travel group) those prices are
fairly constant internationally so the PPP distorts that.

So? What % of the annual budget of the average person goes to travel?
And Europeans do travel abroad more than Americans (just take a look at
how many Americans have a passport).

I'm somewhat surprised that you fell into that somewhat simplistic
trap. The primary reason that more Europeans have passports that
Americans is the Balkanization of Europe. In parts of Europe you need a
passport in order to travel more than about an hour in any direct.
Americans can travel the length and breadth of North America without a
passport (inicluding Canada and Mexico). The fact that Europe fought
itself into tiny little legal entities that required people to have
passports to cross the street in some cases isn't something the Euros
should be bragging about.

Second, when you point out that only 2 individual members have better
PC GDP than the average of the US you are acknowledging that, taken as
a whole, Europe is in worse economic shape than the US.

So is Japan, and nobody suggests Japanese don't have money to spend
while on holiday.

As compared to Americans? I'm suggesting it.

Third, you are taking pieces of the whole in Europe and comparing them
with the whole in the US. Try comparing pieces against pieces. Take the
best countries in the EU and compare them with the best states in the
US. A more accurate comparison. And the same result as I pointed out.
Europe has a poor economy compared with the US. And this employment
policy is one (of several) reason.

How do you weigh happier citizens with that?

Quick change of subject, I see. You were happy to talk about money
until you got boxed into a corner.

Also, the EU has a more even distribution of income than the US.

Yes. Evenly low.

There are more average Europeans than average Americans, that means
someone is doing things well.

What???????????

The average European is substantially poorer than the average American.
The average European would be considered lower (or lower-middle) class
financially in America. That is "doing something well"???

So your point that somehow Europeans are deprived of cash to do what
they want is plain false. They have, and they have more time to spend
it the way they want.

Your "so" doesn't follow at all from your data.

And I didn't say Euros are "deprived of cash" I said that they have
less than Americans. And they do. You pointing out that only 2
countries in the EU have a better PC GDP than the average of the US
proves that.

You're not following the discussion. When told that Europeans enjoy
more vacation than Americans you replied what's the use if they don't
have money to spend on them.

And if they have less money to spend on average then a higher
percentage will have no money to spend. Simple.

1) You completely ducked the response. First you say pay is the best
way to reward efforts then you won't respond as to the obvious
contradiction when you support a process that reduces pay.

There is no process reducing pay. People who want to have the option to
renounce to part of their holiday allowance and work instead if both
employer and employee agree to.

????? The pay is reduced from the outset. You just described how you
can recover part of that reduction by renouncing vacation. By doing so
you acknowledge that the pay is lower than it would be it there were
less vacation. So you proved yet another of my points

Grasping at straws again, you're jumping from one subject to the other.

No, same subject. The vacation policy is hurting the workers.

You first said giving more holiday is a great way to motivate somehow
implying that European business don't reward efforts.

No, you said that. I said that "rewards" are a great way. That includes
salary *and* vacation.

Then I replied:
that's false, they get more benefits but especially more pay (the
ultimate reason for which the individual works).

???? Euros get *less* pay.

Again. There are no thresholds, this is social science.

Your'e the one who claimed that this is some how excessive and causes
stress. Explain the difference.

It's simple: excessive work causes stress but there is no way to
calculate how much is excessive as it depends on every individual and
work position.

Define "excessive". That was the question.

Note that most psychiatrists say that people are more stressed now than
they were a century ago. But the average person now works 50% less than
the average person did a century ago. So your linkage is getting lost.

People are happier with more holiday,

Really? Again, psychiatrists point out that vacations are often very
stressful.

and there is no way to
demonstrate the optimum working time (be it 2, 4 or 6 hours holiday)

Yet you seem to claim that there is a way. You do so by claiming that
the US is somehow harming its workers by not giving them enough
vacation.

so we'd better go for the point where the maximum people are happy and
it's still economically viable.

OK. Good point. My point is that the mandatory minimum 4 weeks vacation
is not economically viable. Look at the unemployment figures in Europe.
Part of that is a direct result of mandatory vacation. Ask employers.
They are reluctant to hire new, unproven people because they are
saddled with this cost (plus the difficulty in letting people go
because of other similarly non-competitive laws in Europe).

Playing with numbers is always fun, 1% more hours obviously sounds
better than two less weeks vacation but it's still two less weeks
vacation.

And what does that mean? Maybe 2 weeks more vacation causes family
stress, boredom, loss of skills, etc.

Just if you don't know how to keep a good life/work balance. Work
addiction is quite a problem on developed societies.

History says otherwise. And it's interesting to see your choice of
words. Work "addiction" as if it is something that is negative. I find
work very fulfilling and personally rewarding. Apparently you don't
share that feeling. Maybe it's time you looked for a different line of
work.

You're the one claiming that
somehow 4 weeks vacation is the magically correct level and 2 weeks of
vacation is slavery. Justify it.

Last time I was on the US (June), I read on an USA today column that
most Americans would give up some pay in exchange for more free time.

Most employer's allow that. Unpaid leave.

You can as well say over 30% of the year is spent sleeping, it still
means nothing.

No, it means that which ever number you use, you spend more time
sleeping than you do working. So how is that stressful?

Because working makes up for more than half the time you are awake,

Excuse me? If 30% is spent sleeping then 70% of your time is spent
awake. 20% of the time working is not "more than half) of 70%. That
means that 50% of your time is spend doing something else other than
working or sleeping. 20% is not greater than 50% last time I looked.

conscious and actually doing things, every bit you can shave off it is
more time to do whatever you want (family, friends, reading, etc.).

Doing what you want? Good idea. Why is it that you don't "want" to work
and do something productive?

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 8 Aug 2006 22:58:01 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

Involuntary servitude has a specific meaning and you can't parse it
apart and try to change its meaning.

Yes. It's not voluntary, and it's service. Conscription is not
voluntary, and it's service. Therefore conscription is involuntary servitude.

I told you before you can't take the words apart and analyze the
meaning of each word then come up with a definition of the whole.

Is this the first time you've met Mixi?

Yes. I get your point. :-)

Dave Frightens Me wrote:
On 8 Aug 2006 19:14:10 -0700, "Tchiowa" wrote:


The Reid wrote:
Following up to Hatunen

For
instancve, the courts have already ruled that American citizens
do not lose their rights when detained at Guantanamo.

pity about everybody else.

Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor
people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was
to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist
acts, and other minor infractions.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4708946.stm

"According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the
Americans themselves.

Yes. Most were captured by Afghans.

Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a
widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in
exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

Good idea.

The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans
handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can
receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch
al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.

"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your
tribe for the rest of your life."

So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as
though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were
handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct
result of these bounties. "

Not quite the same picture?

???? Exactly the same picture. People with links to Al Qaeda and the
Taliban absolutely are covered by my statement above regarding
terrorists and murderers.

wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Tchiowa writes:

Yeah, I have a hard time sleeping at night thinking about these poor
people who seem to have lost some of their rights when all they did was
to maim, kill, torture thousands of Afghans, participate in terrorist
acts, and other minor infractions.

The people being held did not generally do any of these
things--although it's true that the definition of "terrorist acts" has
become very broad.

Those people being held were for the most part either captured on the
battlefield performing terrorist acts or supporting a terrorist
government while fighting out of uniform, or they were taken as members
of terrorist cells.

Says who? The US military? If they did something wrong, try them in a
court of law.

No, if they committed a "crime" you try them in a court of law. If I'm
not mistaken the Geneva Conventions bar criminal trials for prisoners
of war. These guys don't qualify for protection under the Conventions
because they were fighting out of uniform (among other reasons) but
it's still a good reference to note that what you are asking for is
simply wrong.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:53:43 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:
It doesn't have to be. It's still enough to trigger seizure of
property without due process.

--
Are you talking about personal property, real property? You are
full of crap and clearly know absolutely nothing about how the either
the judicial system or property seizure works.