"the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" - Ironic that you mention cognitive dissonance then post this. Do you know what treason means? Isn't it the job of the president to have discussions with foreign nations? Can you point to any evidence of wrongdoing in any discussion? Might want to take a step back and reconsider that cognitive dissonance comment.
You don't collude with a hostile foreign power against an American adversary. You just don't. At the very least, you call the FBI when you hear this sort of thing. I don't know that Trump is actually involved in any of this, but some of his close advisers are accused of it.
Where you can't touch a breast, but you can cave in a chest, at the nudie bar. Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye, at the nudie bar. Where the beer gives you gas, but the Bundys kick ass, at the nudie bar.
You can refuse service to almost anyone... unless you are straight the the person being refused is gay.
Or you have a 'whites only' policy. Or a "no cripples allowed" sign. That's what happens when a class of people is historically discriminated against and anti-discrimination legislation is put in place to compensate.
Whats funny is they mention how fast it is to pay with your card, when in reality, especially since the chip readers... It takes almost twice as long for a transaction. and about 3-4x as long as a cash transaction.
It depends on the chip reader. My local Costco refused the chip reader push until they could get readers that were fast, and it's only about five seconds from card insert to done.
Did he work 5x longer or harder than the median Joe who only makes $51k? Or the guy working two full-time minimum wage jobs to make $32k?
Almost certainly not. He was in the right place at the right time, had the right connections, etc. Income in the US is based more on luck than effort or skill.
It's about how much value you bring, not the physical effort involved or the number of hours you work. Any idiot can be a ditch digger, which is why someone with a shovel doesn't earn much (or usually doesn't have a job anymore). Now someone talented at operating the heavy machinery that digs the ditches these days, that might be another matter.
Compensation is based on how hard you would be to replace. If your industry is full of folks willing to do the same job but cheaper, that will drive your salary down.
No chance of this being abused... Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship?
Usually, they don't have to. Once it's found out, people tend to be fairly honest about it, especially since the penalty is not being fired, but being transferred to another department so there's no conflict of interest. Even if a company fired a worker and then claimed it was for a sexual relationship that didn't happen, that would open them up to a pretty big lawsuit. That's why you don't hear of that sort of thing happening.
That sounds like a rule that is meant to express a policy but which is absolutely not enforcible and may, in fact, be against the law. Most companies have a rule against moral turpitude [wikipedia.org] of which even the feds have had to repeal the section on "adultery".
Most states are employment at will states. They don't have to "prove" anything, certainly not to a legal standard, to fire you, just like you don't have to have a reason to quit.
Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.
Most reputable companies would not put them in a boss/subordinate position. That's just fucked up if they did that.
Yes, though where suffering has happened, we tend to go well out of our way to find some reason the person deserved it. Often then stretching further to find justification for even more.
Sure. Everyone likes to be able to tell themselves that things are properly ordered.
I think Harleys are fine if the driver -looks- like a stereotypical Hell's Angel biker. The more... bikery he (sorry, it has to be a he) is, the more likely it is he gets to ride on the roads.
If you look like Al Bundy or like anyone who works at Oracle, hell no.
Motorcycles, when measured by the amount of fuel required to move a fixed weight a certain distance, are horribly inefficient. If a typical 4,000 lb. passenger car operated with the same efficiency as a 500 lb. motorcycle getting 70 mpg, the car would only get 9 mpg.
Yeah, but we don't measure it that way because the 4000lb is not payload you care about, only the contents of the car are. The weight of a car is only a means to an end.
Although we're concerned in this case with absolute fuel usage rather than proportional usage, the point remains that motorcycles could get far better mileage than they do.
There's a certain amount of overhead that will be taken by operating an ICE regardless of the payload weight. Also, a certain amount of static friction / tire, a certain amount of wind resistance which will be larger than the difference between weights might indicate.
I don't get it. I have a blue Nissan Leaf, never saw anything like that, nor have the other Leaf owners I've known. Is this something specific to your area?
In other words, we have a punitive culture. We like to see others suffer.
Sortof. We like to see suffering if we think the person deserved it. Enough that if the person commits a moral failing, but doesn't pay for it in some way, that in itself is a second outrage on someone's part.
Ah, in that case we're quibbling about the details of the implementation, but the basic concept, that an absentee father or mother should have to pay to support the raising of his/her child is sound. If so, sure we agree.
Like many people said we have online platforms that provide this (Coursera, Khan, etc), but they are all inherently flawed. This is because they are all using passive learning methodologies. Passive learning is reading a video, sitting in a lecture or watching a video. Passive learning is provably less effective than active learning which is learning by doing.
I always wondered why I was able to learn so much about history through Wikipedia, while back in grade school my history books were hated, and it was my worst subject. I think it's because on a Wikipedia article I was able to explore tangents at my leisure, easily click on a name I didn't still recognize to remind myself who that was, and explore any direction. I was always a science kid, never particularly enjoyed history, and now I can blow an afternoon on Wikipedia clicking through history articles. The branching format of the wiki worked better for me (and more reflects the relationships between people and places) rather than the linear front-to-back of chapters.
LOL. We could have replaced teachers by automated machines years ago.
There's no substitute for a good teacher. Everyone learns differently, and everyone has different places where they can get stuck. There's no better way to get past a mental roadblock than just ASK in person.
It doesn't matter, because the travel ban does not have anything to do with religion, other than the bullshit narrative you're trying to attach that is completely fabricated.
But it does. The problems is that you can use the past statements of the President and Steve Bannon and the like against them.
Original subject aside, you seem to think that people who disagree with you deserve to be harassed at border checkpoints and should not be able to fly in the US.
It's because he was confused at the difference between pedophile and child molester. He was perturbed that someone would outwardly advocate that child molestation be legal, and thought that only someone who would gain in such a system would advocate it. Thus he's accusing the person of being an unrepentant, active child molester and thus be undeserving of the freedom of our society.
Of course, the OP said no such thing in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Slav != white
They look white enough to me.
They're just not Anglo-Saxon.
"the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" - Ironic that you mention cognitive dissonance then post this. Do you know what treason means? Isn't it the job of the president to have discussions with foreign nations? Can you point to any evidence of wrongdoing in any discussion? Might want to take a step back and reconsider that cognitive dissonance comment.
You don't collude with a hostile foreign power against an American adversary. You just don't. At the very least, you call the FBI when you hear this sort of thing.
I don't know that Trump is actually involved in any of this, but some of his close advisers are accused of it.
...that we know of.
Yeah, that's an argument.
Where you can't touch a breast, but you can cave in a chest, at the nudie bar.
Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye, at the nudie bar.
Where the beer gives you gas, but the Bundys kick ass, at the nudie bar.
You can refuse service to almost anyone ... unless you are straight the the person being refused is gay.
Or you have a 'whites only' policy. Or a "no cripples allowed" sign. That's what happens when a class of people is historically discriminated against and anti-discrimination legislation is put in place to compensate.
Another issue is how do I pay my neighbor kid to mow my lawn with a credit card?
Well, is the neighborhood kid a cashless business?
But the answer is Paypal, or another small transaction company for b2b.
Whats funny is they mention how fast it is to pay with your card, when in reality, especially since the chip readers... It takes almost twice as long for a transaction. and about 3-4x as long as a cash transaction.
It depends on the chip reader. My local Costco refused the chip reader push until they could get readers that were fast, and it's only about five seconds from card insert to done.
Did he work 5x longer or harder than the median Joe who only makes $51k? Or the guy working two full-time minimum wage jobs to make $32k?
Almost certainly not. He was in the right place at the right time, had the right connections, etc. Income in the US is based more on luck than effort or skill.
It's about how much value you bring, not the physical effort involved or the number of hours you work. Any idiot can be a ditch digger, which is why someone with a shovel doesn't earn much (or usually doesn't have a job anymore). Now someone talented at operating the heavy machinery that digs the ditches these days, that might be another matter.
Compensation is based on how hard you would be to replace. If your industry is full of folks willing to do the same job but cheaper, that will drive your salary down.
Those are some pretty broad strokes you're painting with.
No chance of this being abused... Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship?
Usually, they don't have to. Once it's found out, people tend to be fairly honest about it, especially since the penalty is not being fired, but being transferred to another department so there's no conflict of interest. Even if a company fired a worker and then claimed it was for a sexual relationship that didn't happen, that would open them up to a pretty big lawsuit. That's why you don't hear of that sort of thing happening.
That sounds like a rule that is meant to express a policy but which is absolutely not enforcible and may, in fact, be against the law. Most companies have a rule against moral turpitude [wikipedia.org] of which even the feds have had to repeal the section on "adultery".
Most states are employment at will states. They don't have to "prove" anything, certainly not to a legal standard, to fire you, just like you don't have to have a reason to quit.
Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.
Most reputable companies would not put them in a boss/subordinate position. That's just fucked up if they did that.
They charge the seller, not the buyer.
The buyer pays for it either way, in the guise of charges from the seller.
And if you want to send money to family/friends, it's free as well.
Be careful not to abuse that -- plenty of people use that for commercial transactions, then get butt-hurt when they find themselves banned.
Yes, though where suffering has happened, we tend to go well out of our way to find some reason the person deserved it. Often then stretching further to find justification for even more.
Sure. Everyone likes to be able to tell themselves that things are properly ordered.
Boy, some AC has been busy in this thread!
BMWs and Hondas are welcome, Harleys are not.
I think Harleys are fine if the driver -looks- like a stereotypical Hell's Angel biker. The more... bikery he (sorry, it has to be a he) is, the more likely it is he gets to ride on the roads.
If you look like Al Bundy or like anyone who works at Oracle, hell no.
Motorcycles, when measured by the amount of fuel required to move a fixed weight a certain distance, are horribly inefficient. If a typical 4,000 lb. passenger car operated with the same efficiency as a 500 lb. motorcycle getting 70 mpg, the car would only get 9 mpg.
Yeah, but we don't measure it that way because the 4000lb is not payload you care about, only the contents of the car are. The weight of a car is only a means to an end.
Although we're concerned in this case with absolute fuel usage rather than proportional usage, the point remains that motorcycles could get far better mileage than they do.
There's a certain amount of overhead that will be taken by operating an ICE regardless of the payload weight. Also, a certain amount of static friction / tire, a certain amount of wind resistance which will be larger than the difference between weights might indicate.
I don't get it. I have a blue Nissan Leaf, never saw anything like that, nor have the other Leaf owners I've known. Is this something specific to your area?
In other words, we have a punitive culture. We like to see others suffer.
Sortof. We like to see suffering if we think the person deserved it. Enough that if the person commits a moral failing, but doesn't pay for it in some way, that in itself is a second outrage on someone's part.
Ah, in that case we're quibbling about the details of the implementation, but the basic concept, that an absentee father or mother should have to pay to support the raising of his/her child is sound. If so, sure we agree.
Like many people said we have online platforms that provide this (Coursera, Khan, etc), but they are all inherently flawed. This is because they are all using passive learning methodologies. Passive learning is reading a video, sitting in a lecture or watching a video. Passive learning is provably less effective than active learning which is learning by doing.
I always wondered why I was able to learn so much about history through Wikipedia, while back in grade school my history books were hated, and it was my worst subject. I think it's because on a Wikipedia article I was able to explore tangents at my leisure, easily click on a name I didn't still recognize to remind myself who that was, and explore any direction. I was always a science kid, never particularly enjoyed history, and now I can blow an afternoon on Wikipedia clicking through history articles. The branching format of the wiki worked better for me (and more reflects the relationships between people and places) rather than the linear front-to-back of chapters.
LOOKING AT THE OTHER CHILDREN IS BAD MKAY.
They probably assume that kids doing that are trying to copy the answers. I sure would! There was plenty of that at my school.
LOL. We could have replaced teachers by automated machines years ago.
There's no substitute for a good teacher. Everyone learns differently, and everyone has different places where they can get stuck. There's no better way to get past a mental roadblock than just ASK in person.
It doesn't matter, because the travel ban does not have anything to do with religion, other than the bullshit narrative you're trying to attach that is completely fabricated.
But it does. The problems is that you can use the past statements of the President and Steve Bannon and the like against them.
I think you missed the AC's point!
Alimony doesn't reflect modern societal values?
Original subject aside, you seem to think that people who disagree with you deserve to be harassed at border checkpoints and should not be able to fly in the US.
It's because he was confused at the difference between pedophile and child molester.
He was perturbed that someone would outwardly advocate that child molestation be legal, and thought that only someone who would gain in such a system would advocate it. Thus he's accusing the person of being an unrepentant, active child molester and thus be undeserving of the freedom of our society.
Of course, the OP said no such thing in the first place.