Anyone can stir a pot, sir.ignorant1 wrote:An ability to “stir the pot” is perceived as power by the powerless
Just as you attempted to do just now.
But the ability to season a pot?
Priceless.
.
Anyone can stir a pot, sir.ignorant1 wrote:An ability to “stir the pot” is perceived as power by the powerless
What does de Morgan have to do with any of this?rocklin wrote: Be there, or be . . .
Mask: AirFit™ P10 For Her Nasal Pillow CPAP Mask with Headgear |
Additional Comments: Software: SleepyHead, loosely following HEAD |
Nothing.tetragon wrote:What does de Morgan have to do with any of this?
and the missing word is: square.rocklin wrote: Be there, or be . . .
.rocklin wrote:Be there, or be square
Thanks.gvz wrote:Nice.
Many levels there.
Sleep is for pussies.gvz wrote:American culture does not put a very high priority on sleep.
OMG!gvz wrote:At the risk of insulting all of cpap, this is my favorite for the past 2 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFxNL2srXQY
Cause we gotta keep on the move.gvz wrote:Why is it that the USA is the biggest consumer of uppers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v67WuP5TU4wrocklin wrote:Dance, dance, dance.
It's hard to keep a train of thought around here, isn't it?VVV wrote:Now where was I?
Mask: Swift™ FX For Her Nasal Pillow CPAP Mask with Headgear |
Humidifier: S9™ Series H5i™ Heated Humidifier with Climate Control |
Additional Comments: Rescan 3.10 |
We will continue to disagree on this point I am sure.-SWS wrote:Well the next time any salesperson stretches the truth to gain your money, or the next time any boardroom full of executives create golden parachutes amidst abysmal company profits, tell yourself their primary goal was social benefit.VVV wrote:-SWS wrote: I think it's worth distinguishing that some of those non-corporate grant (risk) scenarios endeavour to pursue social benefits, whereas ROI groups risk capital specifically toward financial benefit. That's not to say capitalistic investment is devoid of social benefit. But I think the risk/benefit dynamics are different in these two product-development scenarios.
We are getting further from agreement instead of closer.
First, capitalistic investment must always have as its primary goal social benefit.
On the contrary capital gain was their PRIMARY decision-making influence and their primary goal. Social benefit is both a byproduct and a secondary decision-making feedback control.
Yes, quite a fine little town.rocklin wrote:.
And I suspect you live in a little town.
(and sure enough:)
I knew it!VVV wrote:if I go through my little town and ask . . .
Only if you continue to argue it.VVV wrote:We will continue to disagree on this point I am sure.
Many methods and motives are employed in the pursuit of profits. The point is that if money is given for reasons other than payment or the pursuit of profit, it is generally called a donation or a gift.VVV wrote:To the contrary profits are a byproduct and a feedback control of investment (copying your terminology).
I did not.VVV wrote: I thought that was a dirty and disingenuous attempt to besmirch market economies by comparing them to a heroin pusher.
Not in Kansas any more, that's for sure.VVV wrote:Now where was I?
VVV wrote:capitalistic investment must always have as its primary goal social benefit.
.VVV wrote:capital gain was their PRIMARY decision-making influence and their primary goal
And you know what is inside every investors head exactly how?VVV wrote:Whether a cancer-fighting drug or a new type of personal electronic device the social benefit is the primary purpose.
Why?VVV wrote:I thought that was a dirty and disingenuous attempt to besmirch market economies by comparing them to a heroin pusher.
I have no such tastes, sir: I live in the city only to ravish the wenches of the isles of Columbia.VVV wrote:But ceding to your metropolitan tastes
The best of luck to him.VVV wrote:BTW, my son was in Manhattan this morning for an interview. 43F and raining heavy. Better him than me.