Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 1 August 2014 13:38:25 UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

An upside to this whole "conversation"... the IED people are testing their devices is Slowman's neighborhood >:-}

Feeding Coke & Mentos to Dingos? ;-)

About as realistic as Jim Thompson's claim. Brain-damaged Americans do have funny ideas about Australia - some even immigrated here, and were sadly disappointed to find rather fewer right-wing nitwits than they'd expected.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 19:51:50 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:30:52 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 1 August 2014 05:32:29 UTC+10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:57:19 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 31 July 2014 16:22:01 UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

"nuny@bid.nes" wrote:

Now, I may well be paranoid, but I'd like to know how many of those "children" know how to make IEDs.

Since few adults know how to make IEDs, as evidenced by the number of people blown up by their own bombs in the early stages of any insurrection (notably the provisional IRA in the UK, but US loonies haven't done too well either, until Darwinian selection has depleted the gene pool) the answer has to be "not very many at all".

About half of the time I perceive you to be fairly level-headed, the other half I perceive you to be living in a fantasy world.

The "early stages" of the current example of IED making in the Middle East are long over. Relatively ignorant (illiterate, at least) people have been making shaped-charge IEDs for a decade or so there, and the skill is quite popular among militant Islamists. It's very difficult to tell a militant one from your average Muslim (until they yell Allahu akbar! and blow something up), and as I said Islam is growing rapidly in rural South America due to the influx of Muslims there from the Middle East.

Islam may be growing rapidly in rural South America, but the number of Muslims there would still fit under "not very many at all". The proportion of those Muslims who are militant enough to make IEDs can be expected to be much the same as the proportion of fundamentalist Christians who are militant enough to go in for armed insurrection, again "not very many at all".

About the same number as there are Jews in the USA.

An unfed troll gathers no podium. Don't feed Slowman.

An upside to this whole "conversation"... the IED people are testing
their devices is Slowman's neighborhood >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

An upside to this whole "conversation"... the IED people are testing
their devices is Slowman's neighborhood >:-}

Feeding Coke & Mentos to Dingos? ;-)


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Robert Baer]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:16:17 -0400, Tom Biasi<tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:

On 7/30/2014 6:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:52:02 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtU8by1CIAENQZ3.jpg:large

...Jim Thompson

About an hour ago, I hired a new EE. Young girl, right out of a
Mexican college, BSEE, and she has really unusual (ie, really good)
electrical instincts.

I've met very few Mexican, or female, circuit designers. Should be
interesting.


I bet she has a human brain.

Humans do come in two sorts, male and female. My wife is a speech
pathologist, a profession that is literally 99% female. Electronic
circuit designers are, I'd guess, 99% male. Don't know why.


Right brain VS left brain?

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:27:16 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:16:17 -0400, Tom Biasi<tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:

On 7/30/2014 6:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:52:02 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtU8by1CIAENQZ3.jpg:large

...Jim Thompson

About an hour ago, I hired a new EE. Young girl, right out of a
Mexican college, BSEE, and she has really unusual (ie, really good)
electrical instincts.

I've met very few Mexican, or female, circuit designers. Should be
interesting.


I bet she has a human brain.

Humans do come in two sorts, male and female. My wife is a speech
pathologist, a profession that is literally 99% female. Electronic
circuit designers are, I'd guess, 99% male. Don't know why.


Right brain VS left brain?

It no doubt has a cultural component. As in being the only X in a classroom full
of Ys. On the other hand, the extra-cirricular parts look good.

One male speech pathologist that we know was originally a chemist with a severe
stuttering problem. He got interested in the speech problem and switched
careers. There's going to be a speech therapy conference in Truckee, and he was
reluctant to be in a cabin with all women, but I'll be there too, so we can go
do male things, throw rocks or chop down trees or something.

Mo sees a lot of techie male stutterers. She may get rich on the Google
referrals alone. Many are (on topic!) immigrants.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

 

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:11:34 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:17:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargood...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:58:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

For a while, it was no secret that the (newer immigrant) Mexicans
were plotting to forcibly overtake the US.

Don't forget libertarians. It's rumored they want to take over the
government and leave everyone alone.

Including those who want to kill them.

You'd think that might irritate even them.

Speaking of, where's Richard the Dreaded?

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:16:28 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:04:57 -0700, Robert Baer wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Immigrants are clobbering working-class jobs, by creating a pool of
cheap labor. Illegal immigrants are even cheaper, since many work off
the books, for cash, without benefits.

Immigration is, at least transiently, increasing income disparity in
the US. The guys who own the painting companies are getting rich using
Chinese and Mexican labor, and the native US guys who used to be
painters are unemployed.


Add in farm labor...

Yes. The "jobs that no American wants" are unwanted because the pay is so low,
and the pay is low because so many illegals are available to do them cheap.

So the better-paid Americans get cheap nannies and housecleaners and gardeners
and painters, and often cheap employees, which makes us better off, while
blue-collar workers struggle.

And kids too. "S"'s kids couldn't get jobs as teens, try as they might.
The labor laws meant all sorts of restrictions on hours and reports to
file regularly, put the schools in charge of policing, and the "living
wage" law meant it wasn't worth doing all that to get some green kid.

When #2 finally got a job he made the mandated "living" wage--a teen
making enough to support a small family!

That much money--enough to live alone and more--in the hands of a
rebel teen causes problems of its own (they start getting ideas).

All-in-all, it was cheaper to hire illegals for the same wage and
get experienced, responsible, hard-working adults.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:53:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

> Yes, the Golden Rule: "He who has the Gold, Rules".

He who rules, gets the gold. (Just look at today's DC.)

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 03:11:18 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 09:27:16 -0700, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:16:17 -0400, Tom Biasi<tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:
On 7/30/2014 6:32 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:52:02 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtU8by1CIAENQZ3.jpg:large

About an hour ago, I hired a new EE. Young girl, right out of a Mexican college, BSEE, and she has really unusual (ie, really good)
electrical instincts.

I've met very few Mexican, or female, circuit designers. Should be interesting.

I bet she has a human brain.

Humans do come in two sorts, male and female. My wife is a speech pathologist, a profession that is literally 99% female. Electronic circuit designers are, I'd guess, 99% male. Don't know why.

Right brain VS left brain?

Right-brain versus left-brain is pure new age psychobabble. Human brains do tend to be usually lateralised, when compared with other animals, but it doesn't much matter which side does what. Regular left-handers have a less predictable pattern of lateralisation than most right-handers - regular (as opposed to pathological) left-handers are roughly half the population which don't really care which hand they use, but their brains work just as well..

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/sep/25/puzzle-of-left-handedness-rik-smits-review

It no doubt has a cultural component. As in being the only X in a classroom full of Ys. On the other hand, the extra-curricular parts look good.

One male speech pathologist that we know was originally a chemist with a severe stuttering problem. He got interested in the speech problem and switched careers. There's going to be a speech therapy conference in Truckee, and he was reluctant to be in a cabin with all women, but I'll be there too, so we can go
do male things, throw rocks or chop down trees or something.

Whatever turns you on.

> Mo sees a lot of techie male stutterers. She may get rich on the Google referrals alone. Many are (on topic!) immigrants.

Odd. The only males stutterers I know are psycholinguists (both of them)- the electronic engineers have all been perfectly articulate. Here's one of the stutterers - getting to be a professor pretty much cured him, which is probably not one of the therapies that Mo could offer

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Chris_Darwin/

Being a relative of Charles Darwin probably helped there - the Darwins and the Wedgewoods were a clever mob.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 12:28:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:54:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:11:34 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:17:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargood...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:58:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
For a while, it was no secret that the (newer immigrant) Mexicans were plotting to forcibly overtake the US.

Don't forget libertarians. It's rumored they want to take over the
government and leave everyone alone.

Including those who want to kill them.

You'd think that might irritate even them.

They aren't bright enough to study history. Like lefties, they think it'll somehow be "different this time".

Interesting thought. Have libertarians ever taken over a government? Somebody as dumb as krw or as deluded as James Arthur might think that the war of independence was fought by libertarians - rather than tax dodgers who sucked in their cannon-fodder by offering "liberty" which they didn't deliver when they won - but the better informed know better.

<snipped question about Rich Grise, who was silly enough to believe that kind of stuff>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 12:12:27 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:53:08 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

Yes, the Golden Rule: "He who has the Gold, Rules".

He who rules, gets the gold. (Just look at today's DC.)

It was articulated by some of the more plain-spoken of the founding tax evaders as "the people who own the country should run the country".

History suggests that they shouldn't - they don't spend enough on keeping the working classes fed, healthy and educated to maximise their own profit, let alone everybody else's. There have been times when they've been less greedy (and have made money out of it) but since Reagan got elected the US has been stuck with a particularly greedy and short-sighted exploiting class.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 12:09:10 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:16:28 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:04:57 -0700, Robert Baer wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Immigrants are clobbering working-class jobs, by creating a pool of cheap labor. Illegal immigrants are even cheaper, since many work off the books, for cash, without benefits.

Immigration is, at least transiently, increasing income disparity in the US. The guys who own the painting companies are getting rich using Chinese and Mexican labor, and the native US guys who used to be painters are unemployed.

Add in farm labor...

Yes. The "jobs that no American wants" are unwanted because the pay is so low, and the pay is low because so many illegals are available to do them cheap.

And in part because the bosses don't pay enough attention to the quality of labour that they are getting.

There's a story that I heard in a lecture from a Cambridge academic - to a small bunch of UK Labour Party members, back around 1990 - about the introduction of a minimum wage in Texas. The fast food shops all agreed that it was going to bankrupt them.

In fact it made them money. They did have to pay their staff more, but the jobs - at the higher rate of pay enforced by the legislation - became more attractive, so the staff stuck around long enough to get good at their jobs, to recognise regular customers, and get their food cooked the way that particular customer liked it, which increased the turnover in the fast food shops.

As often happens with a "free" market, the pressure to push down wages had taken them below the optimal level, and short term advantage had discouraged management from bucking the trend. Wages have to paid every week, and it takes a while for customers to get happier and eat out more often.

> > So the better-paid Americans get cheap nannies and house cleaners and gardeners and painters, and often cheap employees, which makes us better off, while blue-collar workers struggle.

Probably not as much better off as suggested by the shrinkage in the wages paid.
Cheap labour isn't always good labour.

And kids too. "S"'s kids couldn't get jobs as teens, try as they might. The labor laws meant all sorts of restrictions on hours and reports to file regularly, put the schools in charge of policing, and the "living wage" law meant it wasn't worth doing all that to get some green kid.

When #2 finally got a job he made the mandated "living" wage--a teen making enough to support a small family!

That much money--enough to live alone and more--in the hands of a rebel teen causes problems of its own (they start getting ideas).

Maybe a non-rebel teen would have got a job earlier ... Green kids are one thing, but green and mouthy kids who don't look like they are going to be easy to teach are quite a bit less attractive again.

> All-in-all, it was cheaper to hire illegals for the same wage and get experienced, responsible, hard-working adults.

Or at least people who are grown-up enough to know how to look that way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 18:54:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:11:34 PM UTC-4, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:17:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargood...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:58:28 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:

For a while, it was no secret that the (newer immigrant) Mexicans
were plotting to forcibly overtake the US.

Don't forget libertarians. It's rumored they want to take over the
government and leave everyone alone.

Including those who want to kill them.

You'd think that might irritate even them.

They aren't bright enough to study history. Like lefties, they think
it'll somehow be "different this time".

>Speaking of, where's Richard the Dreaded?

Exactly.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 5:29:56 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

There's a story that I heard in a lecture from a Cambridge academic - to a small bunch of UK Labour Party members, back around 1990 - about the introduction of a minimum wage in Texas. The fast food shops all agreed that it was going to bankrupt them.



In fact it made them money. They did have to pay their staff more, but the jobs - at the higher rate of pay enforced by the legislation - became more attractive, so the staff stuck around long enough to get good at their jobs, to recognise regular customers, and get their food cooked the way that particular customer liked it, which increased the turnover in the fast food shops.





Bill Sloman, Sydney

Sounds good, but I am not convinced it it true. The minimum wage in Texas is exactly the same as the federal minimum wage.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 22:25:11 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 5:29:56 AM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:







There's a story that I heard in a lecture from a Cambridge academic - to a small bunch of UK Labour Party members, back around 1990 - about the introduction of a minimum wage in Texas. The fast food shops all agreed that it was going to bankrupt them.

In fact it made them money. They did have to pay their staff more, but the jobs - at the higher rate of pay enforced by the legislation - became more attractive, so the staff stuck around long enough to get good at their jobs, to recognise regular customers, and get their food cooked the way that particular customer liked it, which increased the turnover in the fast food shops.

Sounds good, but I am not convinced it it true. The minimum wage in Texas is exactly the same as the federal minimum wage.

It is now. I was told the story about 1990, as history - it wasn't presented as something that had happened recently, but rather as an example of a failure the "free market" which the UK's Thatcher-ite Tories (who were in power then - Thatcher only got booted out as Prime Minister in 1990 and the Tories remained in power until 1997) were as irrationally fond of as today's US Tea Party.

This is alluded to in my post, but you've snipped that part of the text, without marking the snip. Commenting on isolated parts of a post is easier than the reacting to the whole of what has been said, but reacting to the whole post might have demand a longer attention span than you could manage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 12:50:13 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

Sounds good, but I am not convinced it it true. The minimum wage in Texas is exactly the same as the federal minimum wage.



It is now. I was told the story about 1990, as history - it wasn't presented as something that had happened recently, but rather as an example of a failure the "free market" which the UK's Thatcher-ite Tories (who were in power then - Thatcher only got booted out as Prime Minister in 1990 and the Tories remained in power until 1997) were as irrationally fond of as today's US Tea Party.


As far as I know Texas has never had a minimum wage that was higher than the Federal minimum wage.

This is alluded to in my post, but you've snipped that part of the text, without marking the snip. Commenting on isolated parts of a post is easier than the reacting to the whole of what has been said, but reacting to the whole post might have demand a longer attention span than you could manage.



--

Bill Sloman, Sydney

Of course I snipped out that part of the text. I did that in deference to others that might read my post. Of course that assumes that the other readers have a memory and have read your previous message. You seem to assume that the other readers are dimwitted.

Dan

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"dcaster@krl.org" wrote:

Sounds good, but I am not convinced it it true. The minimum wage in Texas is exactly the same as the federal minimum wage.

<http://conservativebyte.com/2014/08/watch-happens-liberals-asked-house-illegals/#7RJUD6LBYpRwiwHh.01>

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"dcaster@krl.org" wrote:

Of course I snipped out that part of the text. I did that in deference to others that might read my post. Of course that assumes that the other readers have a memory and have read your previous message. You seem to assume that the other readers are dimwitted.

He knows that almost everyone has him kill filed and it's his only
chance to be seen.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 3 August 2014 02:43:57 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 12:50:13 PM UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

Sounds good, but I am not convinced it it true. The minimum wage in Texas is exactly the same as the federal minimum wage.

It is now. I was told the story about 1990, as history - it wasn't presented as something that had happened recently, but rather as an example of a failure the "free market" which the UK's Thatcher-ite Tories (who were in power then - Thatcher only got booted out as Prime Minister in 1990 and the Tories remained in power until 1997) were as irrationally fond of as today's US Tea Party.

As far as I know Texas has never had a minimum wage that was higher than the Federal minimum wage.

So what? The story is about reactions to raising the minimum wage.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/stateMinWageHis.htm

Texas seems to have had no minimum wage until 1968, when it was introduced at $1.40 per hour. It went up to $3.35 per hours in 1988 and stayed there until 2002. My story could be about the 1968 imposition, or the 1988 rise.

This is alluded to in my post, but you've snipped that part of the text, without marking the snip. Commenting on isolated parts of a post is easier than the reacting to the whole of what has been said, but reacting to the whole post might have demand a longer attention span than you could manage..

Of course I snipped out that part of the text. I did that in deference to others that might read my post. Of course that assumes that the other readers have a memory and have read your previous message. You seem to assume that the other readers are dimwitted.

You certainly seem to be. You missed the point of my first post and continue to ignore it when I reiterated it in my response to your post. This may be another version of James Arthur's ideological blinkers - which mean that he doesn't process anything that doesn't fit his preconceptions - but your history suggests that simple dimwittedness is a sufficient explanation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 3 August 2014 06:12:30 UTC+10, Michael Terrell wrote:

"dcaster@krl.org" wrote:

Of course I snipped out that part of the text. I did that in deference to others that might read my post. Of course that assumes that the other readers have a memory and have read your previous message. You seem to assume that the other readers are dimwitted.

He knows that almost everyone has him kill filed and it's his only chance to be seen.

Curious logic. Why would assuming that "the other readers are dimwitted" in crease my chances of being seen?

Of course I'd be very grateful if Mike Terrell kill-filed me - his reactions to my posts are inevitably a waste of bandwidth.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney