How on earth did you come up with that? I don't want to take your guns away. I'm a gun owner myself. I just want other gun owners to be responsible or face consequences when they irresponsibly leave their loaded weapons laying around and people are hurt or killed by them. If you are responsible with your weapons you have absolutely nothing to fear from the position I advocate. If you are leaving your guns loaded and unlocked laying around in places where kids can get them, and someone is injured or killed as a result of irresponsibility and carelessness, then I would want to see you tried for what was done with your weapons.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand or the least bit controversial. You can wear your gun in a holster all day long if you want, just don't leave it on the table if it is loaded and unlocked. You can own any arbitrary number of guns that you want, just don't leave them sitting around and loaded. I just want gun owners to be responsible with their choices. Here I thought conservatives liked the idea of personal responsibility, but obviously when it comes to guns many of them vehemently oppose it.
I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"
This is in the US. Indeed, it is woefully underreported with few cases making it past local media. A decent source is the GunFail blog which often indexes these accidents, but is dependent on volunteer reporting of them. They easily come up with at least 5-7 per week (on slow weeks) which easily averages out to once per day.
in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible
An exact answer is impossible. A good estimate is only impossible if you don't want one.
(basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise)
I'm not interested in what is called an "accident" versus what is not. I'm interested in when idiots leave their guns out and children kill people with them as a result of the wanton stupidity of the gun owner. There is no subjectivity to the matter; if the gun was loaded and left unsecured it meets the criteria. Furthermore it is indisputable that this happens all the time and nothing is done about it.
Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.
How soon do you want kids to go to school for that? We have had plenty of occurrences of toddlers and preschool aged kids killing people with weapons that idiots left sitting out. And I don't know when or where you went to school but I never saw any gun safety instruction in my school, nor have my parents ever mentioned it in theirs either.
Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it.
And I'll ask: Have you noticed how often the relative turns out to be a police officer and the weapon his or her service pistol? That's way too high as well.
I have noticed that is a fair portion of it. I would like to see them lose their job and their license to carry, then be prosecuted for what happened when their unsecured weapon was used. If they can't be responsible with their weapon - whether it is for work or otherwise - they shouldn't be allowed to carry it and should be liable for what happens when it is left unsecured.
That being said, wanting 'smart' guns to take care of this problem is a bit like wanting an automatic robot arm to snatch any children out of the pool if an adult isn't present. While cool, there are cost, reliability, and implementation issues. For the pool, just get a good cover, alarm, or lock for the fence. For the firearm, there are numerous options to secure any weapon, ranging from 'free' on up.
I know the article here is about smart guns. However I am talking about personal responsibility. I don't oppose gun ownership, and am a gun owner myself. I see the responsibility of gun ownership as being a great one and not one that one should ever take lightly. I keep my guns far, far, out of reach of my children because I see there being no greater responsibility for me in my home than the safety of my children. I am absolutely not calling for responsible owners to lose their weapons. I am not calling for changes to any carry laws either as I do believe it is possible to carry responsibly - including around children. I am only calling for owners who make terrible irresponsible decisions to be held responsible for those terrible decisions.
The government, if anything, should do a little bit of a campaign to encourage parents and people secure their weapons. Maybe even subsidize gun safes a touch.
I would be good with a campaign, even though it would be targeting a small portion of the population and likely make little to no difference. I'm not sure that a gun safe subsidy would help though, I suspect it would likely be used by those who already wanted a gun safe and ignored by those who think they don't need them.
That surprises me not at all here that my comment was swiftly moderated down while your comment - which appears to be the product of not even reading my comment in its entirety - was moderated up through the stratosphere.
Please, tell me, why do you support irresponsibility? I thought gun owners were supposed to be responsible? Why are they not held to any kind of responsibility when they leave loaded unlocked weapons lying around and people die as a result?
If I leave the keys in the ignition of my car with the doors unlocked and someone steals it I can be held liable for what that person does with it. Why do we not hold gun owners to the same minimum level of responsibility?
I recognize that the overwhelming majority of gun owners - myself included - are responsible with their weapons. They keep them on their person or securely locked up at all times. I don't care how many weapons you want to own, as long as you are responsible with them. However when someone is irresponsible with their weapons I believe there should be consequences.
a proposed rule that would require individuals prohibited from buying a gun due to mental health issues to be included in a background check system.
Shit, I thought we at least figured that one out by now. I know we as a nation are in general opposed to anything that resembles gun legislation but this one should be pretty damned straightforward. I'm way past the left end of the political spectrum relative to slashdot but I recognize that most mass shooters are nutjobs and many of them have been recognized as such by mental health professionals. Preventing them from buying weapons should be a pretty agreeable matter.
if your kid shoots someone, did you take reasonable steps to prevent it...
You haven't read enough articles yet if you are asking that question. Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it. Roughly never does the owner of the weapon face any criminal charges for being an idiot and complacently allowing that killing to happen (even if the idiot owner is alive).
As a nation we utterly refuse to learn anything from these incidents.
I've stated before that I can't recall a single thing that candidate Drumpf has said that I agree with. If he were to somehow take the election I would almost certainly move to Canada. That said, I really don't think that Drumpf supporters with the intelligence to use second life (which isn't much but his supporters are almost never the sharpest tools in the shed) would be dumb enough to wrap themselves in the swastika.
Swastikas sound just a tad suspicious, innit?
Not at all. The Trump campaign is littered with nazis:
Indeed, they attract more nuts per capita than any other campaign, and by a long shot. However the flag they showed in the sl screen shot is rather unique. I searched the google (images) for it and found only one similar one, which has been pasted in quite a few places. I would wager that most of the solid neo-nazis in the Drumpf camp are too solidly knuckle-dragging to be able to stitch those images together and convince themselves it is a good idea.
Also, who could forget this nice lady working for the Trump campaign with stormfront tattoos and "88" tattooed on her hand.:
I believe I saw her on Jon Oliver. Indeed she's a nutter.
Another reason why I don't think his campaign would have actually done this is because the swastika is almost universally accepted as a sign of anti-semitism. Drumpf is anti-lots-of-stuff but I've never heard him take a stance against Jews (not to say that he wouldn't). It does get used occasionally in other displays of white supremacy but not as often.
I do think someone did this just to make Drumpf look bad. Not that such a feat is difficult, but I think they went for it anyways.
I don't respect Drumpf or any part of his campaign but I have yet to see a Drumpf supporter embrace a swastika as a symbol of their campaign. They might not be the sharpest tools in the shed but even they know better than to venture down that road...
If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.
We need to make driving entirely voluntary (it isn't in most of the US) before we can legitimately remove someone's license.
Texting - and drinking - are 100% voluntary. People who take their driving sufficiently seriously do not engage in either when they are driving.
I know that's an unpopular view, but you're literally destroying someone's ability to support themselves by banning them from driving in most of the US
They made a terrible choice. They need to face the consequences of that terrible choice. They could have chosen to not do this terrible thing. Nobody forced them to do this.
revoking driver's licenses is reprehensible and evil.
Not when the holder of said license is showing complete disregard for public safety. They do not deserve the privilege of driving when they do that. They chose to be irresponsible, with that choice comes consequences.
dropping $4800 to try out a device (because once you order them, they're yours)
I'm not sure where you were looking at hearing aids - as this may vary by state - but that problem does not exist where I live in the US. The audiologist I brought said elderly relative to carries several models and gave us a model for him to try for 4 weeks at zero cost (beyond the audiology visit, which was covered by his regular health insurance). He was able to wear them for that time and see how they do in different situations, and how they fit. At the end of the 4 weeks he brought them back and had a choice to order the same, try a different model, or just scrap the idea altogether.
The ones he purchased - which were the same model as the trial ones he initially tried - also have a warranty far better than any consumer electronics item I can think of.
I recently helped an elderly family member get tested, fitted, etc for hearing aids at an audiology office. Sure, it seems like a lot of money. But the $2,400 covers the hearing aid for three years of whatever you might happen to do to it. That breaks down to $800 per year, or less than $70 per month (per ear). That's less than a cable bill, and less than what most people - even elderly drivers - spend on gas for their cars for a month.
That said, there is one health care plan that does cover hearing aids 100% that I am aware of - the VA. I know several people who have gotten their hearing aids for free through them and they've been very happy with it.
Several health insurance plans also offer a small rebate to the customer after they purchase them. The same elderly family member I mentioned before got $500 back from these, and is eligible to do that every 3 years. While I'm not in need of them myself I believe my health insurance plan has a similar arrangement.
I moved back to where I grew up in part because I missed the winter. I'm back and have very little winter in this place - snow doesn't last (too warm), lakes don't freeze early enough (same reason) - I would have moved further north if I'd have known ahead of time that I was going to run in to this. I really enjoy snow and cold myself; I know I can always make more heat or put on another layer of clothing but making cold air is a challenge - and the world doesn't need me running around naked.
What side would slashdot posters take if these workers unionized?
You must be new here. Slashdot has been overrun by conservatives for a long, long time. Any union would be roundly bashed by the loudest voices here, regardless of industry. You could have a union formed by independent gun, ammo, and US flag salespeople and slashdot readers would trip over each other telling us how these people were terrible unpatriotic terrorists who should be run out of the country - or up the nearest pole - sooner than possible.
However the thoughts of slashdot posters is irrelevant. These IT workers won't succeed in unionizing, or at least not in doing so and keeping their jobs. Sure, firing people for organizing a union is illegal but it is extremely difficult to prove and these workers are going against the industry that already owns the federal government. They'd have a better chance of growing wings and flying to Mars.
If Hillary and Trump are on the ballot, I foresee Sanders getting a 15-20% third-party vote (I don't see him dropping out after not getting a democratic nomination).
Sanders will endorse Hillary if she wins the nomination. Sanders supporters would very much prefer a President Sanders over a President Clinton but they are intelligent enough to recognize that a President Clinton would be vastly better for their interests than a President Trump; hence they will line up behind Hillary if she wins the nomination. I have not met in person a single Sanders supporter - and I have met many of them - who would not vote for Hillary if she wins. They understand the stakes.
At least one of the current two parties are on their way out.
The GOP was on its way to implosion. Now it is fracturing into strange new segments, it comes down to whether or not the party elders can get all the cats back in line in time; likely the answer is no.
Tragically, the democrats seem to be learning the wrong lesson from this. They should be making an identity for themselves as a legitimately left-leaning party. Instead over the past 20+ years they have leaned consistently further to the right. Not only is the current GOP too conservative for 1980 Ronald Reagan, the current democrats may be as well.
I cannot stop you from lying if you feel you should. The fact of the matter however is that you have a lengthy comment history of advocating for non-voting. Whether or not you yourself vote is another matter but that only matters in that it would detail the depth of your hypocrisy.
Wow, you wrote one message where you advocated for voting for someone - rather than your usual advocacy of abstaining from voting entirely - and now you pretend to have some credibility? Too bad you are completely overlooking the fact that voting for a third person with no chance in a race is not an effective way to bring about anything. Go back to your non-voting strategy but keep it to yourself. Some of us live in the real world and face the restrictions it presents.
Voting for someone else in the 2008 election would have brought the same conclusion for "health care reform", it just would have at most had someone else's name on it.
You hit the nail on the head there. For history notes typing is great. For chemistry notes not so much. For math, forget it. Some digital handwriting systems are pretty good at note taking, but they all have their faults.
Personally I take my notes by hand first, then if I know I will want to go back to them later I manually transcribe them into presentation slides (which I usually then export to PDF).
Organized labor has no power in this country any more. They are even further handicapped by trying to face off with an industry that is so powerful it essentially owns the federal government. Sure, they can't be fired for organizing but the company can fire them for insubordination. Or as the description suggested the company could just fold and then reopen under a new name with the same business plan.
Sorry guys but your goose is cooked. You can't win this one.
Slashdot Mirror
How on earth did you come up with that? I don't want to take your guns away. I'm a gun owner myself. I just want other gun owners to be responsible or face consequences when they irresponsibly leave their loaded weapons laying around and people are hurt or killed by them. If you are responsible with your weapons you have absolutely nothing to fear from the position I advocate. If you are leaving your guns loaded and unlocked laying around in places where kids can get them, and someone is injured or killed as a result of irresponsibility and carelessness, then I would want to see you tried for what was done with your weapons.
I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand or the least bit controversial. You can wear your gun in a holster all day long if you want, just don't leave it on the table if it is loaded and unlocked. You can own any arbitrary number of guns that you want, just don't leave them sitting around and loaded. I just want gun owners to be responsible with their choices. Here I thought conservatives liked the idea of personal responsibility, but obviously when it comes to guns many of them vehemently oppose it.
I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"
This is in the US. Indeed, it is woefully underreported with few cases making it past local media. A decent source is the GunFail blog which often indexes these accidents, but is dependent on volunteer reporting of them. They easily come up with at least 5-7 per week (on slow weeks) which easily averages out to once per day.
in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible
An exact answer is impossible. A good estimate is only impossible if you don't want one.
(basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise)
I'm not interested in what is called an "accident" versus what is not. I'm interested in when idiots leave their guns out and children kill people with them as a result of the wanton stupidity of the gun owner. There is no subjectivity to the matter; if the gun was loaded and left unsecured it meets the criteria. Furthermore it is indisputable that this happens all the time and nothing is done about it.
Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.
How soon do you want kids to go to school for that? We have had plenty of occurrences of toddlers and preschool aged kids killing people with weapons that idiots left sitting out. And I don't know when or where you went to school but I never saw any gun safety instruction in my school, nor have my parents ever mentioned it in theirs either.
Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it.
And I'll ask: Have you noticed how often the relative turns out to be a police officer and the weapon his or her service pistol? That's way too high as well.
I have noticed that is a fair portion of it. I would like to see them lose their job and their license to carry, then be prosecuted for what happened when their unsecured weapon was used. If they can't be responsible with their weapon - whether it is for work or otherwise - they shouldn't be allowed to carry it and should be liable for what happens when it is left unsecured.
That being said, wanting 'smart' guns to take care of this problem is a bit like wanting an automatic robot arm to snatch any children out of the pool if an adult isn't present. While cool, there are cost, reliability, and implementation issues. For the pool, just get a good cover, alarm, or lock for the fence. For the firearm, there are numerous options to secure any weapon, ranging from 'free' on up.
I know the article here is about smart guns. However I am talking about personal responsibility. I don't oppose gun ownership, and am a gun owner myself. I see the responsibility of gun ownership as being a great one and not one that one should ever take lightly. I keep my guns far, far, out of reach of my children because I see there being no greater responsibility for me in my home than the safety of my children. I am absolutely not calling for responsible owners to lose their weapons. I am not calling for changes to any carry laws either as I do believe it is possible to carry responsibly - including around children. I am only calling for owners who make terrible irresponsible decisions to be held responsible for those terrible decisions.
The government, if anything, should do a little bit of a campaign to encourage parents and people secure their weapons. Maybe even subsidize gun safes a touch.
I would be good with a campaign, even though it would be targeting a small portion of the population and likely make little to no difference. I'm not sure that a gun safe subsidy would help though, I suspect it would likely be used by those who already wanted a gun safe and ignored by those who think they don't need them.
That surprises me not at all here that my comment was swiftly moderated down while your comment - which appears to be the product of not even reading my comment in its entirety - was moderated up through the stratosphere.
Please, tell me, why do you support irresponsibility? I thought gun owners were supposed to be responsible? Why are they not held to any kind of responsibility when they leave loaded unlocked weapons lying around and people die as a result?
If I leave the keys in the ignition of my car with the doors unlocked and someone steals it I can be held liable for what that person does with it. Why do we not hold gun owners to the same minimum level of responsibility?
I recognize that the overwhelming majority of gun owners - myself included - are responsible with their weapons. They keep them on their person or securely locked up at all times. I don't care how many weapons you want to own, as long as you are responsible with them. However when someone is irresponsible with their weapons I believe there should be consequences.
a proposed rule that would require individuals prohibited from buying a gun due to mental health issues to be included in a background check system.
Shit, I thought we at least figured that one out by now. I know we as a nation are in general opposed to anything that resembles gun legislation but this one should be pretty damned straightforward. I'm way past the left end of the political spectrum relative to slashdot but I recognize that most mass shooters are nutjobs and many of them have been recognized as such by mental health professionals. Preventing them from buying weapons should be a pretty agreeable matter.
if your kid shoots someone, did you take reasonable steps to prevent it...
You haven't read enough articles yet if you are asking that question. Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it. Roughly never does the owner of the weapon face any criminal charges for being an idiot and complacently allowing that killing to happen (even if the idiot owner is alive).
As a nation we utterly refuse to learn anything from these incidents.
Swastikas sound just a tad suspicious, innit?
Not at all. The Trump campaign is littered with nazis:
Indeed, they attract more nuts per capita than any other campaign, and by a long shot. However the flag they showed in the sl screen shot is rather unique. I searched the google (images) for it and found only one similar one, which has been pasted in quite a few places. I would wager that most of the solid neo-nazis in the Drumpf camp are too solidly knuckle-dragging to be able to stitch those images together and convince themselves it is a good idea.
Also, who could forget this nice lady working for the Trump campaign with stormfront tattoos and "88" tattooed on her hand.:
I believe I saw her on Jon Oliver. Indeed she's a nutter.
Another reason why I don't think his campaign would have actually done this is because the swastika is almost universally accepted as a sign of anti-semitism. Drumpf is anti-lots-of-stuff but I've never heard him take a stance against Jews (not to say that he wouldn't). It does get used occasionally in other displays of white supremacy but not as often.
I do think someone did this just to make Drumpf look bad. Not that such a feat is difficult, but I think they went for it anyways.
I don't respect Drumpf or any part of his campaign but I have yet to see a Drumpf supporter embrace a swastika as a symbol of their campaign. They might not be the sharpest tools in the shed but even they know better than to venture down that road...
Well, some people claim slashdot is still a thing as well... Turns out there are still fans of just about anything you can think of.
If they are trying to pay for something but it isn't available for sale, they aren't really exercising any sense of entitlement. The market has rejected them - and their money - so they are obtaining what they want some other way. There is no indication from this - and if anything counter indication - that they wouldn't pay for it if they could.
We need to make driving entirely voluntary (it isn't in most of the US) before we can legitimately remove someone's license.
Texting - and drinking - are 100% voluntary. People who take their driving sufficiently seriously do not engage in either when they are driving.
I know that's an unpopular view, but you're literally destroying someone's ability to support themselves by banning them from driving in most of the US
They made a terrible choice. They need to face the consequences of that terrible choice. They could have chosen to not do this terrible thing. Nobody forced them to do this.
revoking driver's licenses is reprehensible and evil.
Not when the holder of said license is showing complete disregard for public safety. They do not deserve the privilege of driving when they do that. They chose to be irresponsible, with that choice comes consequences.
Make it at least as bad as DUI, or better yet... First time felony.
Both should be automatic felonies, with extended loss of license. We treat both as minor offenses in the US which is itself criminal.
dropping $4800 to try out a device (because once you order them, they're yours)
I'm not sure where you were looking at hearing aids - as this may vary by state - but that problem does not exist where I live in the US. The audiologist I brought said elderly relative to carries several models and gave us a model for him to try for 4 weeks at zero cost (beyond the audiology visit, which was covered by his regular health insurance). He was able to wear them for that time and see how they do in different situations, and how they fit. At the end of the 4 weeks he brought them back and had a choice to order the same, try a different model, or just scrap the idea altogether.
The ones he purchased - which were the same model as the trial ones he initially tried - also have a warranty far better than any consumer electronics item I can think of.
I recently helped an elderly family member get tested, fitted, etc for hearing aids at an audiology office. Sure, it seems like a lot of money. But the $2,400 covers the hearing aid for three years of whatever you might happen to do to it. That breaks down to $800 per year, or less than $70 per month (per ear). That's less than a cable bill, and less than what most people - even elderly drivers - spend on gas for their cars for a month.
That said, there is one health care plan that does cover hearing aids 100% that I am aware of - the VA. I know several people who have gotten their hearing aids for free through them and they've been very happy with it.
Several health insurance plans also offer a small rebate to the customer after they purchase them. The same elderly family member I mentioned before got $500 back from these, and is eligible to do that every 3 years. While I'm not in need of them myself I believe my health insurance plan has a similar arrangement.
As far as I know he is the only artist who turned down Weird Al multiple times on requests to make parodies.
I moved back to where I grew up in part because I missed the winter. I'm back and have very little winter in this place - snow doesn't last (too warm), lakes don't freeze early enough (same reason) - I would have moved further north if I'd have known ahead of time that I was going to run in to this. I really enjoy snow and cold myself; I know I can always make more heat or put on another layer of clothing but making cold air is a challenge - and the world doesn't need me running around naked.
What side would slashdot posters take if these workers unionized?
You must be new here. Slashdot has been overrun by conservatives for a long, long time. Any union would be roundly bashed by the loudest voices here, regardless of industry. You could have a union formed by independent gun, ammo, and US flag salespeople and slashdot readers would trip over each other telling us how these people were terrible unpatriotic terrorists who should be run out of the country - or up the nearest pole - sooner than possible.
However the thoughts of slashdot posters is irrelevant. These IT workers won't succeed in unionizing, or at least not in doing so and keeping their jobs. Sure, firing people for organizing a union is illegal but it is extremely difficult to prove and these workers are going against the industry that already owns the federal government. They'd have a better chance of growing wings and flying to Mars.
If Hillary and Trump are on the ballot, I foresee Sanders getting a 15-20% third-party vote (I don't see him dropping out after not getting a democratic nomination).
Sanders will endorse Hillary if she wins the nomination. Sanders supporters would very much prefer a President Sanders over a President Clinton but they are intelligent enough to recognize that a President Clinton would be vastly better for their interests than a President Trump; hence they will line up behind Hillary if she wins the nomination. I have not met in person a single Sanders supporter - and I have met many of them - who would not vote for Hillary if she wins. They understand the stakes.
At least one of the current two parties are on their way out.
The GOP was on its way to implosion. Now it is fracturing into strange new segments, it comes down to whether or not the party elders can get all the cats back in line in time; likely the answer is no.
Tragically, the democrats seem to be learning the wrong lesson from this. They should be making an identity for themselves as a legitimately left-leaning party. Instead over the past 20+ years they have leaned consistently further to the right. Not only is the current GOP too conservative for 1980 Ronald Reagan, the current democrats may be as well.
I cannot stop you from lying if you feel you should. The fact of the matter however is that you have a lengthy comment history of advocating for non-voting. Whether or not you yourself vote is another matter but that only matters in that it would detail the depth of your hypocrisy.
Wow, you wrote one message where you advocated for voting for someone - rather than your usual advocacy of abstaining from voting entirely - and now you pretend to have some credibility? Too bad you are completely overlooking the fact that voting for a third person with no chance in a race is not an effective way to bring about anything. Go back to your non-voting strategy but keep it to yourself. Some of us live in the real world and face the restrictions it presents.
Voting for someone else in the 2008 election would have brought the same conclusion for "health care reform", it just would have at most had someone else's name on it.
You hit the nail on the head there. For history notes typing is great. For chemistry notes not so much. For math, forget it. Some digital handwriting systems are pretty good at note taking, but they all have their faults.
Personally I take my notes by hand first, then if I know I will want to go back to them later I manually transcribe them into presentation slides (which I usually then export to PDF).
Organized labor has no power in this country any more. They are even further handicapped by trying to face off with an industry that is so powerful it essentially owns the federal government. Sure, they can't be fired for organizing but the company can fire them for insubordination. Or as the description suggested the company could just fold and then reopen under a new name with the same business plan.
Sorry guys but your goose is cooked. You can't win this one.
You make that statement as if you expect me to believe that you could support it with reality. You and I both know that is not true.
And what have you ever risked with your strategy of non-voting and mocking people from internet forums? You have no skin in the game.