Bungee Jumper

And Marty, like Miller, has one whole loss. Underwhelming. Sure.

Def Leppard did that one, dumbass.

It's not that government waste isn't a big deal, it's that $11 isn't a big deal when it comes to government waste. Bitching "I want my $11 back!" is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If you want to start eliminating waste, don't start with $11 in health care costs. Start with the $2000 per household in DoD spending the Pentagon can't even account for each year...

Clearly you have no self-esteem.

THAT is correct. That I had to explain something so outlandishly simple TWICE is...unsurprising, actually.

I was going to suggest that...but I was trying to be polite for once.

They can't both be right. I just demonstrated they can't both be right. It's very easy. P = LKT. K and T are constant. You divide both sides by L to get P/L = KT. P/L is your personal productivity. KT is a constant. If L increases, by your own mathematical definition it has no effect on personal productivity, because by your own mathematical definition you've defined personal productivity to be A CONSTANT. You can't define something to be a constant, and they say your definition causes it to vary... Conversely, if you take your example and plug them into the equation: 100 workers make 100 widgets; taking 'widgets' as an arbitrary unit of measure for P, that's 100 = 100KT, where KT is a constant - specifically, it's a constant equal to 1 widget per laborer. Now if you increase L to 200, you're saying that P only increases to 150...so 150 = 200KT, and KT is now 0.75 widgets/laborer. But you already said that KT is a constant, so how can it change??? Your example and your math do not match. One of them is wrong. But that's not my point. My real point is: you have got to be the dumbest !@#$ing spud on face of the planet if you can't see that the example and the math do not match.

No, I'm not. Really. You can shut up, it's fine by me.

Well, you did sit on your ass. In a 30-year old Gooney Bird. I may think you're a prick...but don't think I ever forgot that bit of trivia. Anyone who flies around in a C-47 in 'Nam is courageous. Or nuts. Or both. Your case...probably both.

Fantasy. Not fact. Fantasy. There is not one single mathematical source in the world that supports your drivel. Not one. Period. For the simple reason that "luck" is not a mathematical concept. Except that the number of people it's spread among is...L. Therefore P/L is, by your equation, KT...which you defined as constant. And your factor example doesn't fit the equation. So either your example's wrong, or your equation's wrong. Either way, you're a complete ass - again - because you're trying to use a nonlinear relation (your example) to prove a strictly linear one (your equation).

It's a real problem. I had to go to Home Depot over lunch; had to fight my way in through the crowds of illegals hanging around out front frantically reviewing Pelosi's speech today...

Just so you hold K and T constant, because then as their personal productivity declines as a result, they'll become more error-prone, and your peer review will eventually determine the correct result as it regresses toward the mean... It's a very, very strange world, the Holcombiverse. Very odd natural laws...

No. Say it isn't so! No one ever ghost-writes an autobiography!

Peer reviewed liberal propaganda, no less. I had no idea your party's propaganda arm was so well organized. When'd the Democrats start doing peer review?

Not just that. He's also saying that total productivity is calculated by P = LKT. If you hold capital K and technology T constant, then personal productivity decreases...except that personal productivity is calculated by dividing your total productivity by your labor pool - P/L. From which we then find that personal productivity is determined simply by KT - which is defined as a constant, not declining, according to the equation he says shows it declines. Genius can't even do simple algebra.

You don't even know the magnitude of the problems. Hell, you can't even decide if they're national issues or not.

Holy sh--. You just !@#$ed up simple multiplication. Please stop trying to do math. Please. I beg you.

You !@#$ing moron. YOU'RE the one that said the nation was "polluted, overcrowded, and poor". NOW you're saying "the national averages aren't important". THAN WHY THE !@#$ DID YOU EXTRAPOLATE LOCAL CONDITIONS TO A NATIONAL PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH, DUMBASS????

Yeah, I really humbled myself with that amazing "a die has a true value of 3.5" statement... ...oh, wait, that wasn't me...

What's the average wait for emergency care in the US? Define "overcrowding" in schools, and tell me what percentage of classrooms experience "overcrowding". The traffic flow issue...we'll just ignore that, before you embarrass yourself trying to oversimplify a complex issue again.

I'm sure, somehow, capital stays constant because of error...

Oh, please...not more math. I haven't stopped laughing at your last math discussion yet...

Ah, so you didn't read the book...

No, no need for numbers. The unsubstantiated word of a total moron that the country is, in fact, polluted, overcrowded, and poor is more than enough. No need to back up your statements with vaguely fact-like objective references. Not that you'd know a vaguely fact-like objective reference if it bit you in the ass anyway.