sigma

I had thought you meant Location: A contiguous volume in 3d space Land: The things within that volume but then this quote above just becomes nonsensical For ownership to make sense you need at least one party who owns it and one party who does not. In both examples above you only have one and hence ownership is not a valid concept to apply to it. They are one and the same and your different dynamics are inferred from real-life scenarios that have no relevance

From what I can see 1) You make a post using words with a subtle distinction or a meaning which you don't explain. 2) Other posters don't understand the word or phrase, take it at face value and point out that it makes no sense 3) You try to explain with more words, phrases and hypothetical theories which aren't explained either 4) Other posters still don't understand and now think your extreme example is meant to reflect reality 5) 10 pages of people debating completely different questions 6) Everyone assumes everyone else is an idiot and gives up. I appreciate that you've spent time on the subject but it takes me several wiki searches before I understand what your posts actually mean.

No mention of the wage offered to the applicants, no doubt the reason why the competent ones don't want to work there.

http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/narcissistic.htm ?

£100,000 a year is loads of money and is only insufficient if you're using it poorly

As things go that really doesn't sound that serious.

Squatting is not a solution to the problem of homelessness in society. I think it should be a crime; if there is no effective safety-net for the homeless then that is the real problem. If I'd picked the right numbers for last week's lotto I'd be a millionaire.

More than a little bit sinister. If you're right then these things will sort themselves out in time

Yet the distinction between this girl and what would be considered a slave in the 3rd world is not subtle in the slightest. I understand your points, if you tone down the hyperbole we may even agree but the description of this as a "forced slave labour law" is even more drivel than the policy itself.

Why argue that it is slavery if you're going to include that last sentence? Your "underlying" definition of slavery is loose to the point of being meaningless and I'm having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to almost everyone. FWIW I think the policy is pointless but to call it slavery is just silly

I believe a few supermarkets (independently) estimated the population at ~80million based on food expenditure a few years back

+1 I can only think of one newspaper columnist whose articles consistently make sense and he doesn't cover anything challenging. These people don't deserve the publicity

Sensible post; it's a shame people resort to public:private arguments so quickly when it's almost completely irrelevant. I'm still in touch with several medics from uni (sorry I don't recall their specific specialties) but as a general rule they (i) Are all paid very well (though they do more hours than average) (ii) Have no comprehension what the average salary OR pension is for an educated worker. I consider myself their equal in both knowledge and skill (albeit a different field) and they routinely overestimate my salary by at least 40%. The short stunned silence when I actually told them was more than a little awkward! (iii) Think there is a linear progression for everyone else from Graduate to MD (which is who most of them compare themselves to... !) Your comment about the civil service is a red herring, their pension scheme is generous in the extreme and can't be used as a (fair) basis for comparison.

Copy and paste from an NHS Pension briefing pack What about the NHS Pension Scheme’s ‘surplus’? -The NHS Pension Scheme is unfunded (i.e. there is no ‘pot’ of money set aside from which to pay pensions) and the Government pays pensions from public finances. -There is a positive balance in the current year as the contributions made by scheme members and employers are more than the cost of the benefits being paid out to retired members. -The scheme does however need to account for pension promises that current members are currently building, to be paid when they retire. -The NHS employs significantly more staff that it did in the 1990s and therefore more pension promises are being built. With the existing contribution structure, the current ‘surplus’ is set to shortly disappear. -A ‘surplus’ at any given point in time does therefore not guarantee the long term affordability of the scheme. This is similar to having a positive balance on your current account at the start of the month whilst knowing that you have bills to pay during the month. I'm not disagreeing with you but let's keep the facts relevant?