Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (51010)	6/7/2009 1:04:03 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220063

This is a quote from WSJ site - many already question the statistics According to Friday's report, hiring last month in goods-producing industries fell by 225,000. Within this group, manufacturing firms cut 156,000 jobs, bringing the total since the recession began to 1.8 million. In contrast, construction employment was down just 59,000 last month, the smallest decline since September. Service-sector employment fell 120,000, well below its peak losses of nearly 400,000. Business and professional services companies shed 51,000 jobs, and financial-sector payrolls were down another 30,000. Retail trade cut 17,500 jobs, while leisure and hospitality businesses added 3,000 an indication that households may be boosting non-essential spending. In a positive signal for future employment prospects, temporary employment -- which economists consider a leading indicator -- fell by only 6,500, its best performance in many months. "We'll be one of the first (sectors) seeing indications of a bottom," said Roy Krause, chief executive of Spherion Corp., a recruiting and staffing firm. Still, temporary staffing "needs to get positive before we can say there's a turn," he said. Education and health care added 44,000 jobs. The government shed 7,000. The average workweek was down 0.1 hour at 33.1 hours, a record low. A separate index of aggregate weekly hours fell 0.7 percentage point to 99.7. US Labor's Solis: No Error In May Nonfarm-Payrolls Report WASHINGTON -- U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis denied Friday that there was an error in the latest nonfarm-payrolls report and that the data would be corrected. Speaking during a conference call with reporters, Solis said the rumor circulating in the financial markets was false. The May jobs report stunned the market with a much smaller-than-expected drop of 345,000. Wall Street economists had expected a decline of 525,000. ---By Brian Blackstone, Dow Jones Newswires; 202 828 3397; brian.blackstone@dowjones.com

To: elmatador who wrote (51010)	6/7/2009 1:58:27 AM
From: Maurice Winn	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 220063

ElM, you are obviously not as precise as you think you are and don't know that a metre is NOT an absolute: <So, a meter has 100cm. I use it as a yards stick. It is not relative. It is absolute. (In 1983, it was redefined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1/299,792,458 of a second.) We Latino like precision we don't use pieces of the human body to measure things, which is an Anglo stuff. > A metre is defined by light moving a metre and how long it takes. But that metre which is used to measure how far the light traveled is measured by, oh, that's odd, the metre which it is going to measure. Okay, let's go with that. So, what's that other thing, the "second" which you are going to use to measure the metre? A second is how long it takes a photon to travel a certain number of those metres you are going to measure. But wait a minute, we haven't measured that metre yet. So the second which you want to use is defined again by the thing which you plan on measuring. That's like you using your arm to measure how long your arm is. What a surprise, it's one arm long. But then, it gets worse. If you measure the metre [or your arm] when going really, really, really fast, meaning nearly as fast as light can go, you'll find that the length goes all elastic and isn't the same length as your other arm which you could leave back at base. But, oddly, when you get back to base and compare your two arms, you find one has got older than the other. So your seconds have gone all wrong too. But wait, there's more. That is if you don't mess around with gravity. But if you tried all that when the cosmos was just being born, you'd find your seconds, metres, kilograms and speed of light would go all to hell and everything would become totally amorphous. You would have no idea how big anything was and it would look enormous and totally bewildering. You'd need some serious numeracy skills to figure it out. Best to give up at this stage and go back to gawping at girls and bolting base stations together - that looks sort of real. Mqurice