zapatos

Is what you said supposed to have anything at all to do with my comment? You've been doing nothing but bitching, complaining, insulting, and whining since you've arrived at this site. It's getting old. Please move on to debate and discussion. It could turn out to be more pleasurable for you and will certainly be more pleasurable for those around you. The world does not revolve around you, and is not about to change because some tiny, insignificant aspect of it is not to your liking. Surely you can find something more meaningful to discuss than whether or not someone put a gold star on one of your posts. You complained earlier that people may not listen to what you say based on a reputation point. I can assure you that your behavior is having a much bigger impact on your reputation than mere 'reputation points'.

All of this mutual admiration and complaining is starting to make me ill. Starting your own forum would allow you to set up the rules you like. Considering this forum is free to you, the moderators work for free, the rules were set up in good faith in order to make the use of this forum enjoyable and educational for the majority, you might want to consider backing off a wee bit. Alternatively there is one action you can take which will guarantee you do not have to deal with the people here. I'm sure no one would object.

Whose definition? Agreed by all? Can you point me to that definition? If I can't, does that mean you are right? But I'll give it a try. There was a different universe which came and went, and during its existence our universe did not exist. That different universe also had time. So during the existence of that other universe there was a time when our universe did not exist. Of course I have no evidence so I am just wildly guessing. But then aren't you also widely guessing about what happened before the big bang?

I know what 'eternal' means. Can you provide your evidence that this applies to the universe?

Just for clarification are you saying there is no proof that public services are cheaper when outsourced, or are you saying that you are not aware of proof that public services are cheaper when outsourced? According to the link in the OP, Hallendale Beach found it cheaper to outsource. Do you have reason to doubt them? In the municipality I live in we outsourced our police department (albeit to another government run police department). We now pay less for police protection, we get better service, and the department we outsourced to makes a profit (which is the reason they wanted to take on our policing duties). Possibly. I'm sure groups often pay less and get less. I'm also sure that groups often pay less and get the same or more. In this case we simply don't have enough data to make that call. When they outsourced did the number of lifeguards change? When it was government run, what was their policy on lifeguards leaving their zone? Did outsourcing result in a change in the number of hours of coverage? Until we know this kind of information it is not possible to reach a conclusion.

Every single company outsources (probably), and it is cheaper for them to do so than to do it in house. Car manufacturers buy steel, they don't make it themselves. They outsource the office cleaners. It is usually cheaper to outsource software development than to do it in house in the US. Who makes their own office supplies? McDonalds outsources some of their order taking to a company in Colorado. As in, 'welcome to McDonalds, can I take your order?'. Often times the person asking you that is not in the store you are at but is in a call center in CO. Pfizer outsources their help desk to the Dominican Republic. My job got outsourced to two guys in India. When IBM came out with their first PC the only hardware they manufactured was the keyboard and the 'IBM' logo. The US Navy does not make their own ships. The Airforce does not make its own planes or satellites. NASA didn't build the optics for Hubble. So what do you think happened? According to the link in the OP:

Please explain how 'the universe is eternal' is a 'fact'.

That is just wrong. No one would outsource if they didn't think it was to their benefit. Not so. I worked for a consulting firm that had about 8000 employees in the US. We always did it cheaper and got the same or better salary than the employees of the company we worked for. When a company figures the cost per employee they include salary and benefits, but they also include all the overhead such as property taxes, energy, security systems, parking garages, Christmas parties, etc. My company had one VP for the entire US, and rented office space for about 600 people. Even though we received comparable or better salaries than the company employees, our cost per employee was lower and profit margins higher. My son was a lifeguard for about three years. Very few pools in the area hired lifeguards directly. Most went through the same local firm to hire them. I agree. This one sounds stupid. Recently an employee of a national convenience store chain near me attacked a man trying to rob his store. The robber ran off with no money. The next day the employee was fired for not handing over the money. Obviously a different case but this company didn't want employees to get the idea that fighting back was a good idea and maybe get themselves killed. I doubt the lifeguard company has a policy that says do not save a drowning man. It is probably more along the lines of 'you cannot leave your zone for any reason'. I'm guessing someone read the policy and fired him without bothering to start up his brain and think about it first.

The scenario you describe is not real. It is something you made up which supports your position. I could just as easily say the private company would be expected to save anyone they see drowning, and the publicly funded/employed lifeguards would be given a territory and told people outside the territory are to be ignored. That is certainly something that could happen. There is nothing magic about public/private. In both cases people are hired to do a job and told what the expectations are. If the government tells the private company to only patrol a certain area and ignore others, then that is hardly the fault of the private company if that is what they do. It is the fault of the government for setting such ridiculous expectations. Of course they are written that way, they just weren't in this case. If you needed more guards for the private company, then you would have needed more guards for the government. Either way someone is making more money. In the private company the money is split between company and employee. In the government scenario it only goes to the guards. What difference does it make who gets the money? Why? Should we have no for-profit hospitals? Should we have no for-profit EMT/ambulance? Private security? Guards? Medical groups? Pharmaceutical companies? Makers of safety equipment? Do you think the drowning victim cares who got paid to monitor the beach that day? The life guard is getting paid for doing that job no matter who pays him.

Either that or the city screwed up by purchasing the wrong services (meaning services that have a strictly enforced zone of coverage) . The only one who seems to have done the right thing is the lifeguard, and he got fired.

I don't know but I assume it has to do with the reasons anyone does outsourcing. Such as the fact that a city government typically does not have much expertise, or even a business model, for how to hire/train/staff/certify/supervise/equip/etc. lifeguards.

This hold true whether they are private or public lifeguards. Again, holds true for both. It is if we are paying for them. I still don't see why the government paying a private company to patrol the beaches is a problem. There is nothing the private company cannot do that the government can do. Whatever the rules are that you would like to see followed by the government, simply write those up in the contract with the private company. If you want them to help anyone in site, put it in the contract. If you want more lifeguards, put it in the contract. You can even put in the contract that the government gets to write up the set of rules.

De nada. I'll use your method also!

Sounds like a good plan. I say go for it.

Why would it be better to have the government run the program itself? Presumably the government would also set up rules the lifeguards must follow. And if the government as one of its rules can say 'but go ahead and help anyone outside the zone also', then there is no reason they can't include that rule in the contract they set up with the lifeguard company.

I agree he should not have been fired as someone drowning now is more important than someone who may drown later. But you also have to consider the responsibilities of the company. When the lifeguard left, he put at risk the swimmers for whom he was responsible. It seems the company should have in place a contingency plan. For example if a lifeguard runs into the surf to save someone in his zone he is then not watching out for others. Another person should have covered his zone at that point. That contingency plan could have gone in place when he went to save someone outside his zone.

I believe it works for you. It doesn't work for me. I wish it did.

I'm jealous that it only seems to work for you!

What does that mean? It would be pushed back from when? How do you 'push' the arrow of time? Also, I don't think mr.spaceman mentioned 'eternal'. He said 'infinite'.

Kind of off topic but I thought some might find this interesting. Twenty Things You Didn't Know About the Periodic Table - by Discover Magazine http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-periodic-table/

How quickly we forget...

As the earth approaches absolute zero, will that have any impact on radioactivity? Or does radioactivity remain constant regardless of temperature?

Do yourself a favor and try not to piss off people you are conversing with. I did not add words to your claim and insist they were yours. I added words to your claim and asked if you also believed that. It is a way gaining a further understanding of a person's position. If someone says they 'enjoyed the restaurant' it doesn't really give me a good understanding of their experience. It is perfectly reasonable of me to say 'did you enjoy the restaurant because the food was good?'. Or, 'did you enjoy the restaurant because of the atmosphere?'. Or 'did you enjoy the restaurant because your first date went very well?'. When people ask you questions you may want to take it as a sign that they are making an honest effort to understand your position. I'm here for conversation and debate, not a lecture.

No I don't know why but I'll take your word that it applies to the natural world. Are you saying that "the relativistic equations which explain the dynamical features of our universe" apply to the supernatural? If so, can you cite any evidence? When you say 'everything in nature abides by this rule', are you saying that God and his abilities are 'natural', and not 'supernatural'? If so, can you cite any evidence?

What rules of physics are applicable to whether the supernatural must be inside or outside the universe? What observation of God's ability led you to the conclusion that God was not capable of 'measuring' the actual individuality of particles from outside the universe?