Anyone?

You really are an idiot. Trump put a big hurt on Assad's air force and they stopped. The causation is obvious to anyone but a devout leftist.

More idiocy. He certainly is stupid *AND* crazy.

Good Lord, you're Stupid!

Yep, a snot-nose kid.

The black unemployment is lower than at any time in the last 40 years (since the numbers have been kept).

Hispanic unemployment is at a record low, too. Wait until people see their pay checks next month.

All those Mexican people came to the USA to get away from druglords and MS13 and poverty and corruption. They don't want that imported here any more than anybody else.

I think hispanics are another "model minority", people who work hard, mostly behave, teach their kids to speak standard English, buy into the American Dream.

Pity that not all minorities do that, merge into our common culture.

At least we have the best Burrito in the USA.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Unlike Obama, Trump has made it a priority to send MS13 back where it belongs.

Perhaps true of most Mexicans but there are a whole lot of bad actors along with them.

Including those born here.

Not into burritos but there is a place here that does a really good brisket enchilada.

te:

es in this thread alone. Can't you find something new?

he

at's

g 11600

sure why, I know when I've done 80+ hour weeks I achieved much more than do ing 48 or 60. Try telling people in the 3rd world that they'll do more work in 48 hours than 80, you'll only get laughed at, and with good reason. The y have direct experience of what happens when they can only get 48 hours do ne.

It seems to. Depends on the nature of the work. Heavy manual labour seems t o peak at 48 hours, while stuff that requires only attention to detail peak s at about 60 hours per week.

Nobody says that. People who work 40 hours per week achieve more in the res t of their lives than people who work 48 hours per week, so it may be bette r for society as a whole, but that's a different argument.

Ditto.

That's a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the absurdity is evident in the first step, so it's NT who looks absurd, rather than the argument he doesn 't like.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ote:

just

and

ho can't be

tress,

ve

They haven't dropped any more gas canisters. They probably haven't got any left.

Either they or the Russians are still bombing hospitals, but Trump doesn't seem to care about that.

He had his uncle shot and his brother assassinated.

That may be crazy, but if he were stupid, they would have got him first.

Family-based autocracies do go in for killing off near relatives - it's a r ational insurance against being replaced by somebody with a tolerably good claim on the top job, so he may not be all that crazy either.

Krw's arguing by repetition, which is pretty stupid.

Trump is a creep, and he's silly enough to let himself look like a creep on the world stage. This is stupid, and krw is too stupid to realise it.

More argument by repetition. Since the support for Brexit came from pig-ign orant nationalists, of the kind who might also believe in the significance of Britain's "special relationship" with the US (which Trump doesn't seem t o be aware of) the argument has more force that krw seems to realise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The Russians have been doing his bombing for him, including bombing hospitals.

Assad doesn't do very complicated mathematics, or he might have figured out that his chance of long term survival might be a bit better if fewer people saw him as a blood-thirsty barbarian.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

te:

es in this thread alone. Can't you find something new?

he

at's

g 11600

sure why, I know when I've done 80+ hour weeks I achieved much more than do ing 48 or 60.

That's part of the problem. Quite a lot of what you think you have achieved is rubbish, and you've gotten too tired to notice.

than 80, you'll only get laughed at, and with good reason. They have direc t experience of what happens when they can only get 48 hours done.

Few of them are healthy enough to be able work that long.

That does seem to have been well-established. Heavy manual labour seems to max out at 48 hours per week, while less demanding work maxes out at about

60 hours per week.

Nobody claims that. Working only forty hours per week does leave enough fre e time to do other useful stuff for the community you live, or for yourself , in terms of self-improvement, and the worker is probably marginally more productive in the forty hours that are worked

Nobody claims that either. It's probably better for the people working the

35 hours per week, but they aren't going to produce as much for their emplo yers as if they worked 40 or 28 hours in the same week.

This is argument by reductio ad absurdum, and while you may find it absurd to think that 80 hours a week produces less than say 60 hours per week, th e people who looked into it found the evidence persuasive.

Nobody thinks that the mechanisms that make you too tired to do a proper jo b when you are working 80 hours per week are still operating when you work less than forty hours per week.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
> NT

rote:

imes in this thread alone. Can't you find something new?

the

That's

ing

2111600

t sure why, I know when I've done 80+ hour weeks I achieved much more than doing 48 or 60.

ed is rubbish, and you've gotten too tired to notice.

bill's usual childish ad-hominem

rs than 80, you'll only get laughed at, and with good reason. They have dir ect experience of what happens when they can only get 48 hours done.

a clueless claim

o max out at 48 hours per week, while less demanding work maxes out at abou t 60 hours per week.

ree time to do other useful stuff for the community you live, or for yourse lf, in terms of self-improvement, and the worker is probably marginally mor e productive in the forty hours that are worked

e 35 hours per week, but they aren't going to produce as much for their emp loyers as if they worked 40 or 28 hours in the same week.

rd to think that 80 hours a week produces less than say 60 hours per week, the people who looked into it found the evidence persuasive.

job when you are working 80 hours per week are still operating when you wor k less than forty hours per week.

At the risk of stating the fairly obvious, at what point tiredness or who-c ares-ism sets in and makes a sizeable difference to output depends entirely on a) the worker b) the type of work they're doing c) what else & how much they spend their energies elsewhere d) their relationship & attitude to the work

NT

rking

942111600

nd

not sure why, I know when I've done 80+ hour weeks I achieved much more tha n doing 48 or 60.

eved is rubbish, and you've gotten too tired to notice.

Anybody who has worked an eight-hour week is going to be tired enough to ma ke errors of judgement.

It's an argument about all human beings, as opposed to just you - so it's y our response that is the ad hominem argument, not mine.

ours than 80, you'll only get laughed at, and with good reason. They have d irect experience of what happens when they can only get 48 hours done.

So find evidence to refute it. The catch is that if the country is poor eno ugh that a lot of it's workers are sick - parasite infestation is the usual problem - they don't seem to have the money to spend on collect data on wo rking hours.

Note that it is an American study in Thailand.

to max out at 48 hours per week, while less demanding work maxes out at ab out 60 hours per week.

free time to do other useful stuff for the community you live, or for your self, in terms of self-improvement, and the worker is probably marginally m ore productive in the forty hours that are worked

the 35 hours per week, but they aren't going to produce as much for their e mployers as if they worked 40 or 28 hours in the same week.

surd to think that 80 hours a week produces less than say 60 hours per week , the people who looked into it found the evidence persuasive.

r job when you are working 80 hours per week are still operating when you w ork less than forty hours per week.

-cares-ism sets in and makes a sizeable difference to output depends entire ly on

The degree to which it makes a difference does depend on the work and the worker. It is an obvious point, and one which I've also made.

The British WW1 data covered enough workers to highlight the fact that heav y manual labour tired people out faster than less demanding work, but it al so covered enough workers to persuade the investigators that having people working more than sixty hours a week on anything didn't help the war effort .

Some freaks may be able to work productively for longer, but the WW1 commis sion did highlight fatigue-caused accidents as one reason why you shouldn't let people work very long hours. If you are tired enough to damage yoursel f, you are clearly tired enough to produce sub-optimal product.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

working

e1942111600

and

m not sure why, I know when I've done 80+ hour weeks I achieved much more t han doing 48 or 60.

hieved is rubbish, and you've gotten too tired to notice.

make errors of judgement.

your response that is the ad hominem argument, not mine.

more of your childishness

hours than 80, you'll only get laughed at, and with good reason. They have direct experience of what happens when they can only get 48 hours done.

Those of us that have spent time in 3rd world don't need to provide you wit h evidence that there are lots of people doing long hours. What a joke.

s are sick - parasite infestation is the usual problem - they don't seem to have the money to spend on collect data on working hours.

of course. But large scales studies aren't required, unless you're being wi lfully stupid.

ms to max out at 48 hours per week, while less demanding work maxes out at about 60 hours per week.

gh free time to do other useful stuff for the community you live, or for yo urself, in terms of self-improvement, and the worker is probably marginally more productive in the forty hours that are worked

g the 35 hours per week, but they aren't going to produce as much for their employers as if they worked 40 or 28 hours in the same week.

correct

es less than say 60 hours per week, the people who looked into it found the evidence persuasive.

There are no lack of research papers out there finding all sorts of things. Look rather closer and you start to notice that the majority of them are w orthless.

per job when you are working 80 hours per week are still operating when you work less than forty hours per week.

ho-cares-ism sets in and makes a sizeable difference to output depends enti rely on

e worker. It is an obvious point, and one which I've also made.

avy manual labour tired people out faster than less demanding work, but it also covered enough workers to persuade the investigators that having peopl e working more than sixty hours a week on anything didn't help the war effo rt.

ission did highlight fatigue-caused accidents as one reason why you shouldn 't let people work very long hours. If you are tired enough to damage yours elf, you are clearly tired enough to produce sub-optimal product.

If you're tired enough to damage yourself then you're more likely working t he wrong hours rather than too many. Long work hours do require that you ta ke a break when you need to and get back to it when more able. That works a lot better for self employment of course.

I've certainly done more than 80 hours a week without putting myself in dan ger or turning out inadequate product. It helps to have several things to d o, so you can pick which suits your condition at the time. The large number s doing this in the 3rd world do not tell me there's anything freakish abou t it.

NT

plonk before I waste any more time on this inadequate individual

: n

rre1942111600

k,

I'm not sure why, I know when I've done 80+ hour weeks I achieved much more than doing 48 or 60.

achieved is rubbish, and you've gotten too tired to notice.

o make errors of judgement.

's your response that is the ad hominem argument, not mine.

More of your misconceived ad hominem.

48 hours than 80, you'll only get laughed at, and with good reason. They ha ve direct experience of what happens when they can only get 48 hours done.

ith evidence that there are lots of people doing long hours. What a joke.

South Korea isn't third world, and has lots of people at work for long hour s, but the local culture seems to let them sleep at their desks.

You may need to learn a bit more about the third world countries that you h ave visited before you start posting your impressions as evidence.

ers are sick - parasite infestation is the usual problem - they don't seem to have the money to spend on collect data on working hours.

wilfully stupid.

You would be the expert on wilful stupidity. May be you are still working l onger hours than you should.

eems to max out at 48 hours per week, while less demanding work maxes out a t about 60 hours per week.

ough free time to do other useful stuff for the community you live, or for yourself, in terms of self-improvement, and the worker is probably marginal ly more productive in the forty hours that are worked

ing the 35 hours per week, but they aren't going to produce as much for the ir employers as if they worked 40 or 28 hours in the same week.

uces less than say 60 hours per week, the people who looked into it found t he evidence persuasive.

s.

And you are going to ignore all the ones that you disagree with.

worthless.

Except that you haven't shown any evidence of having read any of them in th e first place.

roper job when you are working 80 hours per week are still operating when y ou work less than forty hours per week.

who-cares-ism sets in and makes a sizeable difference to output depends en tirely on

the worker. It is an obvious point, and one which I've also made.

heavy manual labour tired people out faster than less demanding work, but i t also covered enough workers to persuade the investigators that having peo ple working more than sixty hours a week on anything didn't help the war ef fort.

mmission did highlight fatigue-caused accidents as one reason why you shoul dn't let people work very long hours. If you are tired enough to damage you rself, you are clearly tired enough to produce sub-optimal product.

the wrong hours rather than too many. Long work hours do require that you take a break when you need to and get back to it when more able. That works a lot better for self employment of course.

The South Korean example come to mind.

24-hour shift work (in three eight-hours shifts) is an example of people wo rking the wrong hours, but that's not what we were talking about.

This does mention that if you can nap when you feel the need to, most of th e problems go away.

anger or turning out inadequate product.

Without thinking that you were putting yourself in danger or were turning o ut an inadequate product. If you could nap when you needed to, you'd be in much less danger of either.

ondition at the time. The large numbers doing this in the 3rd world do not tell me there's anything freakish about it.

The large numbers being at work for long hours in the third world don't tel l you much, because you don't know what they are actually doing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

A remarkably childish response.

They may be at work for long hours. If they can nap during that time, the problem goes away. Production lines are more of a first world feature, and they do require you to keep at it.

NT doesn't feel himself up to constructing adequate evidence-based arguments - which makes him the inadequate individual here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I knew the US would Trump the Berlin wall!

Groetjes Albert

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS 
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. 
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

I'm sorry, I was out of the room for a moment. *Which* countries are the "shit-hole" countries again?

Rick C.

Whichever one you're posting from, most likely.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.