An old Friend of this board posted this link on another site (Wink Wink )
Its Worth the read, trust me.
Evolving Excellence
Its Worth the read, trust me.
Evolving Excellence
Time To Get Serious
- Thread starter jakeatolla
- Start date
Yep..I do agree is very interesting.
And what is stucked on my mind is the reality in Europe about people choosing not having kids and the population aging...hmmm....400 hours more vocations than US workers?
They must be really richer, well some of them are enjoying life more for sure...how can they do that?
Dont understand much really but who are going to pay for all of that when the majority of working force retired, need assistance living etc? How governements deal with the social security, they invest it , save it, spend it ?
How Europeans see and analise this article? Please give feedback..I'm worrying about your future really..I will miss so much, your chaming ways...and the ones who will exist then will be nothing like you...they may be sooooo stress and overworked..all the things a person with extra extra responsabilities and carrying their world on their backs may feel...
And what is stucked on my mind is the reality in Europe about people choosing not having kids and the population aging...hmmm....400 hours more vocations than US workers?
They must be really richer, well some of them are enjoying life more for sure...how can they do that?Dont understand much really but who are going to pay for all of that when the majority of working force retired, need assistance living etc? How governements deal with the social security, they invest it , save it, spend it ?
How Europeans see and analise this article? Please give feedback..I'm worrying about your future really..I will miss so much, your chaming ways...and the ones who will exist then will be nothing like you...they may be sooooo stress and overworked..all the things a person with extra extra responsabilities and carrying their world on their backs may feel...
Is this someone's essay paper? Damn, I thought I could write poorly, but it can't seem to decide whether it's catering for "Bushites" or people with intellects.
What the article should really consider is the WHY. WHY is China a threat WHY are populations dropping WHY is Iran having a nuke a bad thing WHY is China being on the world table a bad thing etc etc.
It's all well insinuating as if it is obvious that "Terrorism is the 3rd way that Muslims are going to DESTROY AMERICA" but is it really? What about the incidents they have unleashed on themselves? Has our "one-sided intervention" on their behalf (the creation of Saddam and Bin Laden come to mind) not been of import?
Sum up the article in several words:
Kill pakis
Fuck more
Take oil
Nuke China.
What the article should really consider is the WHY. WHY is China a threat WHY are populations dropping WHY is Iran having a nuke a bad thing WHY is China being on the world table a bad thing etc etc.
It's all well insinuating as if it is obvious that "Terrorism is the 3rd way that Muslims are going to DESTROY AMERICA" but is it really? What about the incidents they have unleashed on themselves? Has our "one-sided intervention" on their behalf (the creation of Saddam and Bin Laden come to mind) not been of import?
Sum up the article in several words:
Kill pakis
Fuck more
Take oil
Nuke China.
Pretty straightforward, but needs editing, for sure. Some things offered without support, such as the fracturing of American business leading to a vast increase in contractors, are not clarified until later in the article. And the typos are a problem, but as there's no trail behind this thing, those might have crept in during transcription to Net-ready ASCII and, if so, can't be blamed on the author.
The causal ascriptions are perhaps a bit aggressive - correlation does not imply causality, of course (everyone knows this, but they do it anyway). You can't just say that a tax credit caused an increase in birth rates. You can note that both occurred about the same time. (Well, one a bit before the other, obviously.) Otherwise it's all very sensible, in a simplified sort of way.
The causal ascriptions are perhaps a bit aggressive - correlation does not imply causality, of course (everyone knows this, but they do it anyway). You can't just say that a tax credit caused an increase in birth rates. You can note that both occurred about the same time. (Well, one a bit before the other, obviously.) Otherwise it's all very sensible, in a simplified sort of way.
