From your link: No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but 37 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers, and 20 states and D.C. prohibit it for school bus drivers.
Which makes the OP's point.
You mean that it is traditional to encourage known criminals to commit obtain a device to be used in a crime and then stop following the device when it is passed off to another party.
The "logic" offered behind Fast and Furious was that it was an attempt to trace straw purchases to the higher ups who were ordering the guns. The problem with that was that the "higher ups" were in Mexico and they did not inform the Mexican government, or even the U.S. agents working in Mexico, that they were doing this. In addition, when the straw purchaser passed the guns off to someone else, ATF agents were ordered to NOT follow the person(s) who now had the guns. In other words, no attempt was actually made to track the guns to the people who they claimed were the target of the investigation.
Interestingly enough, right about the time they started facilitating the movement of guns into Mexico, high level Administration officials (including the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the President) began making regular speeches about how the majority of guns used in crimes in Mexico were traced back to sales in the U.S..
Good grief your example is stupid. No state in the U.S. has been able to pass a law making English the official language, yet you are saying that Quebec's law making every business do business in French is the equivalent of laws protecting culture that exist in the U.S.?
Well, then I guess the problem is that his company is not willing to pay what it takes to attract such people. This is basic market economics. If you cannot find a sufficient supply of something to meet your needs, you need to pay more than others who have the same needs in order to obtain whatever that something is. In this case, that something is workers with particular qualities.
I see two problems with your statement. The first is that you seem to be defining "qualified" in a way that is not quantifiable, which means that no one else can ever discover whether or not a particular person meets your definition of "qualified". As a result of that, we have to take your assertion that you cannot find someone who is qualified and need to bring in an immigrant to do the job (who just happens to be willing to work for less than a U.S. citizen with similar quantifiable qualifications). The second problem I have with your statement is that perhaps the reason you are having problems finding qualified people to fill your job openings is because you are not willing to pay them enough for them to be interested in coming to work for your company. Another possibility is that you need to hire people and train them yourself so that they have the qualifications you need.
No, plain old rule of law is where the same rules apply to everyone and has nothing to do with what type of economic system you use (although I have never seen a country where the government controls the economy which had rule of law). When the government begins managing the economy, rule of law begins to break down. Interestingly enough, the reverse tends to happen as well, as the government stops interfering in the economic decisions of its citizens, rule of law starts to appear in countries which previously had no experience with it.
I don't think you know what fascism is. Fascism is government control of the economy while still allowing private ownership (as long as those private owners do what the government tells them to). The primary difference between fascism and communism is cosmetic (oh and communists usually kill more of their own people than fascists).
The Hutterites are very distinctly a religious sect. It is their religious beliefs which allow communism to work in their communities. I have never heard of a communist community that was not religious in nature which lasted more than a generation (and even most of the religious ones quickly failed).
That is not true. There have been several implementations of communism. They have all been relatively small scale. As far as I am aware, the only ones which were at all successful were religious communities (See Hutterites). The thing to notice about all of the implementations of communism is that they were purely voluntary (that is, those who did not wish to take part in communism were free to leave the group).
Actually, the best analysis of the situation I have seen came from someone who had investigated a similar problem that was reported for cars with purely mechanical acceleration linkages some years back. They had studied that situation and discovered that overwhelming majority of those experiencing the problem were in a particular age range (I forget now if that age range was 55-65, or somewhat older). Further analysis revealed that most people go through a kinesthesia change during that period (kinesthesia is the awareness of where a body part is based on the sensations you are receiving from it). When going through that change, people often believe that their feet are positioned a few inches from where they actually are. As a result, drivers in this age range are likely to be positive that their foot is on the brake when it is actually on the accelerator. The interesting thing is that once the person becomes used to the change, they are perfectly capable of being aware of where their foot is once more. The person who did that original analysis analyzed the Toyota data and found that the majority of reported cases involved drivers who were in the same age range. When he took out those data points which looked suspicious as to being part of this actual problem(drivers who looked to be cashing in on the publicity of this, either for money or to explain away their own bad behavior, accidents where no one in the vehicle survived, but this was used to explain irrational behavior on the part of the driver, etc) the overwhelming majority of cases were in this age range and most of the remaining were inexperienced drivers.
Actually on most cars where turning the key turns off the car, there is a point where you have turned off the engine but have not engaged the steering wheel lock. However, most people turn the key one stop further when they turn off the engine, because you have to in order to remove the key. They are probably unaware that they can turn off the engine without engaging the steering wheel lock.
Actually, it would be like saying someone works for Pennsylvania State University when they work at Pennsylvania State University Great Valley...Oh wait, people do say that, even though most of the time people think the State College campus when they hear that. If they had been referring to the LOCATION rather than the EMPLOYER of the scientists, you might have a point. The scientists do indeed work for the University of Texas. BTW, I am pretty sure that the people who run the University of Texas encourage this particular usage.
Just because most people in Texas mean University of Texas at Austin when they say University of Texas does not mean that the summary is wrong. Both the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas at Dallas are part of the University of Texas. Just because you assume that University of Texas refers to a one subset of that institution does not mean that someone was wrong to use it to refer to another subset.
Sorry, the problem with your examples is that they merely represent the TSA agents at a single airport (if that). The correct comparison, to use just one of your examples, is to sprinkler systems in every office in the country. In that case one finds that many of them have put out fires. On the other hand, the TSA agents throughout the country have NOT caught a single terrorist.
Well, that is an interesting theory. The problem is that income inequality gets worse under politicians who "do" something about it (such as our current President) and gets better under politicians who consider it not to be the government's problem to fix. You might want to ask yourself why that is.
It sounds to me like the ISPs position is that if they are going to be subject to net neutrality, they want the whole ball of wax of being a common carrier. On the other hand, the FCC does not want to call them common carriers. It would be interesting to see why the FCC does not want to call them common carriers, since the judge flat out told them that the only way they can legally regulate "net neutrality" is if they change their classification of ISPs to common carrier.
It looks to me like the FCC's plan here is to keep massaging these rules and re-issuing them until the ISPs decide they cannot afford to keep going back to court over it.
Where did I say that employers are fair? I believe that most employers will do what is in their best interests. For the majority of employers that means giving their employees vacation time.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a significant number of doctors are among the zealots for what Whole Foods is peddling.
From your link: No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but 37 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers, and 20 states and D.C. prohibit it for school bus drivers.
Which makes the OP's point.
You are correct, but that is not what the current law DOES.
You mean that it is traditional to encourage known criminals to commit obtain a device to be used in a crime and then stop following the device when it is passed off to another party.
The "logic" offered behind Fast and Furious was that it was an attempt to trace straw purchases to the higher ups who were ordering the guns. The problem with that was that the "higher ups" were in Mexico and they did not inform the Mexican government, or even the U.S. agents working in Mexico, that they were doing this. In addition, when the straw purchaser passed the guns off to someone else, ATF agents were ordered to NOT follow the person(s) who now had the guns. In other words, no attempt was actually made to track the guns to the people who they claimed were the target of the investigation.
Interestingly enough, right about the time they started facilitating the movement of guns into Mexico, high level Administration officials (including the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the President) began making regular speeches about how the majority of guns used in crimes in Mexico were traced back to sales in the U.S..
Good grief your example is stupid. No state in the U.S. has been able to pass a law making English the official language, yet you are saying that Quebec's law making every business do business in French is the equivalent of laws protecting culture that exist in the U.S.?
Well, then I guess the problem is that his company is not willing to pay what it takes to attract such people. This is basic market economics. If you cannot find a sufficient supply of something to meet your needs, you need to pay more than others who have the same needs in order to obtain whatever that something is. In this case, that something is workers with particular qualities.
I see two problems with your statement. The first is that you seem to be defining "qualified" in a way that is not quantifiable, which means that no one else can ever discover whether or not a particular person meets your definition of "qualified". As a result of that, we have to take your assertion that you cannot find someone who is qualified and need to bring in an immigrant to do the job (who just happens to be willing to work for less than a U.S. citizen with similar quantifiable qualifications). The second problem I have with your statement is that perhaps the reason you are having problems finding qualified people to fill your job openings is because you are not willing to pay them enough for them to be interested in coming to work for your company. Another possibility is that you need to hire people and train them yourself so that they have the qualifications you need.
Oh no, there have been many implementations of communism which were not voluntary. They all failed catastrophically.
No, plain old rule of law is where the same rules apply to everyone and has nothing to do with what type of economic system you use (although I have never seen a country where the government controls the economy which had rule of law). When the government begins managing the economy, rule of law begins to break down. Interestingly enough, the reverse tends to happen as well, as the government stops interfering in the economic decisions of its citizens, rule of law starts to appear in countries which previously had no experience with it.
I don't think you know what fascism is. Fascism is government control of the economy while still allowing private ownership (as long as those private owners do what the government tells them to). The primary difference between fascism and communism is cosmetic (oh and communists usually kill more of their own people than fascists).
No True Scotsman
The Hutterites are very distinctly a religious sect. It is their religious beliefs which allow communism to work in their communities. I have never heard of a communist community that was not religious in nature which lasted more than a generation (and even most of the religious ones quickly failed).
Well, at least you admitted that you are a fascist.
That is not true. There have been several implementations of communism. They have all been relatively small scale. As far as I am aware, the only ones which were at all successful were religious communities (See Hutterites). The thing to notice about all of the implementations of communism is that they were purely voluntary (that is, those who did not wish to take part in communism were free to leave the group).
Actually, the best analysis of the situation I have seen came from someone who had investigated a similar problem that was reported for cars with purely mechanical acceleration linkages some years back. They had studied that situation and discovered that overwhelming majority of those experiencing the problem were in a particular age range (I forget now if that age range was 55-65, or somewhat older). Further analysis revealed that most people go through a kinesthesia change during that period (kinesthesia is the awareness of where a body part is based on the sensations you are receiving from it). When going through that change, people often believe that their feet are positioned a few inches from where they actually are. As a result, drivers in this age range are likely to be positive that their foot is on the brake when it is actually on the accelerator. The interesting thing is that once the person becomes used to the change, they are perfectly capable of being aware of where their foot is once more. The person who did that original analysis analyzed the Toyota data and found that the majority of reported cases involved drivers who were in the same age range. When he took out those data points which looked suspicious as to being part of this actual problem(drivers who looked to be cashing in on the publicity of this, either for money or to explain away their own bad behavior, accidents where no one in the vehicle survived, but this was used to explain irrational behavior on the part of the driver, etc) the overwhelming majority of cases were in this age range and most of the remaining were inexperienced drivers.
Actually on most cars where turning the key turns off the car, there is a point where you have turned off the engine but have not engaged the steering wheel lock. However, most people turn the key one stop further when they turn off the engine, because you have to in order to remove the key. They are probably unaware that they can turn off the engine without engaging the steering wheel lock.
Actually, it would be like saying someone works for Pennsylvania State University when they work at Pennsylvania State University Great Valley...Oh wait, people do say that, even though most of the time people think the State College campus when they hear that. If they had been referring to the LOCATION rather than the EMPLOYER of the scientists, you might have a point. The scientists do indeed work for the University of Texas. BTW, I am pretty sure that the people who run the University of Texas encourage this particular usage.
Just because most people in Texas mean University of Texas at Austin when they say University of Texas does not mean that the summary is wrong. Both the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas at Dallas are part of the University of Texas. Just because you assume that University of Texas refers to a one subset of that institution does not mean that someone was wrong to use it to refer to another subset.
Sorry, the problem with your examples is that they merely represent the TSA agents at a single airport (if that). The correct comparison, to use just one of your examples, is to sprinkler systems in every office in the country. In that case one finds that many of them have put out fires. On the other hand, the TSA agents throughout the country have NOT caught a single terrorist.
Well, that is an interesting theory. The problem is that income inequality gets worse under politicians who "do" something about it (such as our current President) and gets better under politicians who consider it not to be the government's problem to fix. You might want to ask yourself why that is.
It sounds to me like the ISPs position is that if they are going to be subject to net neutrality, they want the whole ball of wax of being a common carrier. On the other hand, the FCC does not want to call them common carriers. It would be interesting to see why the FCC does not want to call them common carriers, since the judge flat out told them that the only way they can legally regulate "net neutrality" is if they change their classification of ISPs to common carrier.
It looks to me like the FCC's plan here is to keep massaging these rules and re-issuing them until the ISPs decide they cannot afford to keep going back to court over it.
Because vegans have money to spend and have already demonstrated that they have more money than sense.
That does not make it the government's business.
Where did I say that employers are fair? I believe that most employers will do what is in their best interests. For the majority of employers that means giving their employees vacation time.
Do you have a cite for that? Everything I have seen says that the people who were running Solyndra were big time donors to the Democratic Party.