Amen brother. The police say that this facebook page is compromising police safety? How do you think people realized it was an unmarked police car? Because it identified itself when it pulled someone over for a bullshit traffic violation. If it's so urgent that the car's identity remain unknown, perhaps they shouldn't blow the cover over meaningless bullshit.
And on that note: Prisons in the US are major business. And what do you do when you've mostly saturated your home market (with the US leading the world in incarceration)? You begin extraditing people from other countries.
In other news, the last kid in John Jay High School to figure out they could just leave their ID card in their locker and stay in bed all day was mercilessly mocked and bullied by his peers.
You sure are snarky for someone who is seemingly incapable of using a search engine.
Google: "site:techdirt.com apple arbitrary" They've done a fairly thorough job of documenting Apple's arbitrary policies. Of course, Apple is free to be as arbitrary as they wish, as are the fanboys free to defend them blindly (thanks for your shining example!). And the rest of us are free to criticize their silly approach and enjoy a superior product.
The point he made was that, dollar for dollar, the US itself doesn't even benefit from it's overspending. If success were proportional to spending, then as he pointed out:
"you would have hoped they'd have come up with the technology to beat a bunch of disorganized and poorly equipped tribes of religious fanatics in Afghanistan."
Perhaps the US could achieve the same results in Iraq and Afghanistan without spending so much. (Keep in mind that in a decade or so both countries will probably be where they were on 9-11). So yea, France is freeriding on the US military expenditure failure: all the failure without any of the spending. Woot!
I can do one better: 100% of the white people here are on land that historically belongs to first nations people. Pretty sure they didn't acquire the land by any means that a reasonable person would consider legal either. I'm also pretty sure they stole a lot more than "jobs."
So assuming you are yourself white, if you really have a problem with people immigrating outside any sort of reasonable legal process, you should probably pack up your bags and head back to Europe. But that's different, right? One set of rules for whites and their descendants and another set for "the other." That's the problem with screaming bloody murder over immigration...unless you are black or native, you are benefiting from the spoils of the illegal immigration of your ancestors in some way. Unless you want to give all that up then you don't really have any moral high ground to stand on.
It's telling that you consider prohibitions on racial profiling to be "the problem." I'm sure you also believe that black people are inherently evil because statistically they dominate the prisons. Respond if you want, I won't read it as I refuse to waste any more time with a bigot.
At some point your foolish decision impacts someone else. In Canada, we have universal health care, so if you hurt yourself we pay for it. In the states, if any of your health care is subsidized, which I imagine it is in part (tax breaks to the hospital?) then you face the same predicament. Emergency crews also have to respond to your road pizza situation when you plaster yourself to the cement (and over and above the monetary costs, any rescue brings inherent risks).
Do seatbelt laws discourage people from driving? Who cares? If it worked that way then maybe we could make the environment last a little longer. If people are not riding just because of a little thing like helmet laws then they aren't serious enough about biking to make a significant impact on their health. If they were ready to make a serious impact on their health then they wouldn't care about helmets, or if they did for some reason then they'd find an alternative exercise.
I can just imagine some morbidly obese guy sitting there saying, "Yea, totally, if it wasn't for the helmet laws I would definitely be biking everyday. For sure."
I'm in a public sector union. I have no experience with unions in the private sector. On the other hand, for every example of a union doing harm to a company you could bring forward, I could probably find just as many examples of companies doing actual physical harm to employees due to unsafe working practices that probably wouldn't happen with a union to protect them (for example, employees feeling compelled to chase after gas and dashers or dine and dashers so that it won't come out of their paycheques, or so they won't lose their job). I need not go further than around the corner either to find such businesses. But notice that I'm not saying that all private sector companies are guilty of putting their employees at risk, or even that private sectors employees are "net bad." I can also provide examples of companies that are great without a union. In fact, in general I would say that unions probably only form when there is substantial reason for the employees to organize. Who would want to form a union, paying unions dues and perhaps risking getting fired for their efforts, when they are perfectly happy in their job? If companies don't want a union to form then perhaps they should consider treating their employees fairly. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't complain when their employees organize.
In contrast, you are essentially writing off unions, at least in the private sector. I think there is more nuance to this discussion than "private sector unions are net bad" (with the point being we should abolish them altogether? If that's not your point then I have no idea what your point is.)
And why 100 years? What has happened in the last 100 years (i.e. since 1912)? Well the civil rights movement, gender pay equity (or moving closer to it), the right for women to vote, minimum wages, attempts to gain a living wage, pension reform, universal healthcare in Canada, equal rights for gay and transgender, rules/laws concerning child labour. I could go on, but if you really want to roll back the changes many unions have had a heavy hand in over the last 100 years, that is if you want to roll back labour practices to 1912, then I don't know how we can carry this conversation forward.
Also I've said repeatedly I don't know about opting out of dues in practice. You should re-read my comments. I stated the law as I understood it in my first post. And then I acknowledged repeatedly that I don't know about how it works in practice. I am not spouting falsehoods, rather I am acknowledging that I don't know. I would appreciate you speaking to what I have said rather than taking down an imagined strawman.
I don't feel like looking it up case law because I don't care. But I am not spouting falsehoods. And I will point out that while you say you are well researched on this matter, it's hard to take you seriously, because if your comments about what I have said are any indication of your reading comprehension in general, I find it hard to believe you've understood the law and rulings as a court would.
Anyways I'm done with this discussion, and I will not be responding anymore, nor will I read your response if you choose to make one. Life is not black and white, good and evil. There are pros and cons to everything and you would do well to remember that.
As I said I don't know about opting out, and any court decision. Have you tried and failed? Tell me about your experience. Which union are you?
As far as them acting against you...well I don't know your union. It sounds like you are against unions as a matter of principle. But might I suggest that you attend some meetings and put forth suggestions that you feel would benefit members? Stomping your feet isn't going to do anything.
That's what I did. I felt like my union wasn't being fair to a certain type of worker. I made a stink, and got some changes.
If they genuinely aren't working for you you could always section 12 them (or the equivalent in your province). That's when you sue them for not representing you.
If they aren't accommodating your religious belief (against unions) you could take them to human rights tribunal. My employer deducts the union dues and gives them to union, so I'm not even sure if it's the unions decision to let you opt out, it might be the employer. Again I've never met a person that wanted to opt out of our union (not to say they don't exist).
It's hard to take someone seriously who thinks unions are all bad. I've recognized that unions can be a force for bad. Likewise employers/managers can be a force to good and bad as well, it depends on the people. If you want to carry this conversation forward then you should recognize the good unions have brought society, as well as the bad.
I don't know about a court decision nullifying the option to not pay dues, so I can't really talk about that. I haven't met anyone that tried to do that.
I'm an executive at large in my union.
I'm not sure about any threats of violence (on either part). I am aware of employers in the distant past threatening employees with violence or actually hurting employees. I'm also aware of managers that were following around employees (spying on them) at a non-union site before they opted to join our union, because they were organizing. Probably somewhere in the history of unions there was an ugly situation where unions engaged in nasty tactics. I know that at one time unions were involved in turning in "Japs" to be interned. Unions have bad history as well as good...because they are made of people and people can be good and bad. But not as one sided as you make it out to be though.
As far as unions doing whatever they want with the money...that's a pretty big claim, and patently false. In my union, any member can make a motion and then there is a vote. We meet a minimum of 9 times per year, with a minimum quorum and all. Annual meeting too. Every position on the executive is elected. People get voted out. Not sure where you're getting your "facts" or whatever you want to call them, but you are way off base.
In BC, you can opt not to join the union, but you still have to pay the equivalent of the dues to a charity of your choice. The point being that the decision to not join a union should be one of personal belief rather than monetary.
I still like the idea that I read on slashdot where you have a cherry picker "gas station" and a modular battery and rather than charge it at the station you replace the battery, with the station constantly charging batteries. Kind of like water coolers, replacing the jug for a refill rather than refilling the jug on site.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen brother. The police say that this facebook page is compromising police safety? How do you think people realized it was an unmarked police car? Because it identified itself when it pulled someone over for a bullshit traffic violation. If it's so urgent that the car's identity remain unknown, perhaps they shouldn't blow the cover over meaningless bullshit.
And on that note: Prisons in the US are major business. And what do you do when you've mostly saturated your home market (with the US leading the world in incarceration)? You begin extraditing people from other countries.
U.S.A! Number 1!
I know but I was trying to be funny. I'm sorry I failed :(
In other news, the last kid in John Jay High School to figure out they could just leave their ID card in their locker and stay in bed all day was mercilessly mocked and bullied by his peers.
...mercilessly mocked by his peer.
Fixed that for you.
Much of my authority is derived from the power of this beard.
Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence? Or is this the wrong crowd?
We need to send this "toddler" to jail. No more excuses!
You sure are snarky for someone who is seemingly incapable of using a search engine.
Google: "site:techdirt.com apple arbitrary" They've done a fairly thorough job of documenting Apple's arbitrary policies. Of course, Apple is free to be as arbitrary as they wish, as are the fanboys free to defend them blindly (thanks for your shining example!). And the rest of us are free to criticize their silly approach and enjoy a superior product.
For the lazy ones:
http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/04/24/crudebox-becomes-prudebox-to-make-it-into-the-app-store/
http://almerica.blogspot.ca/2008/09/podcaster-rejeceted-because-it.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10042127-2.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?59,651569
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/91508-Apple-Blocks-Obscene-Newsreader-App
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/may/21/apple-iphone
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/09/apple-imposes-n/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36946/Interview_Molleindustria_On_Phone_Storys_Objectionable_Message.php
I await your apology with bated breath.
And how many seemingly innocuous apps are denied, when we would predict they should be fine?
Maybe it will be approved...maybe it won't. Nobody can predict it because their rules are so arbitrary. And that, I imagine, is GP's point.
The real question on everyone's mind is where they stand on Pokemon liberation.
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/10/4/1/enhanced-buzz-29282-1349327955-0.jpg
Ohhhhhh.
That context helps. As much as I'm free speech and all that, I can't say I feel bad for the guy. That was an awful awful 'joke.'
Low Orbit Ion Cannon. House is painted with green laser. You are clear to go hot, over.
The point he made was that, dollar for dollar, the US itself doesn't even benefit from it's overspending. If success were proportional to spending, then as he pointed out:
"you would have hoped they'd have come up with the technology to beat a bunch of disorganized and poorly equipped tribes of religious fanatics in Afghanistan."
Perhaps the US could achieve the same results in Iraq and Afghanistan without spending so much. (Keep in mind that in a decade or so both countries will probably be where they were on 9-11). So yea, France is freeriding on the US military expenditure failure: all the failure without any of the spending. Woot!
I can do one better: 100% of the white people here are on land that historically belongs to first nations people. Pretty sure they didn't acquire the land by any means that a reasonable person would consider legal either. I'm also pretty sure they stole a lot more than "jobs."
So assuming you are yourself white, if you really have a problem with people immigrating outside any sort of reasonable legal process, you should probably pack up your bags and head back to Europe. But that's different, right? One set of rules for whites and their descendants and another set for "the other." That's the problem with screaming bloody murder over immigration...unless you are black or native, you are benefiting from the spoils of the illegal immigration of your ancestors in some way. Unless you want to give all that up then you don't really have any moral high ground to stand on.
It's telling that you consider prohibitions on racial profiling to be "the problem." I'm sure you also believe that black people are inherently evil because statistically they dominate the prisons. Respond if you want, I won't read it as I refuse to waste any more time with a bigot.
Hey take this guy seriously. He can identify an illegal immigrant just by looking at them! Arizona needs you, sir!
At some point your foolish decision impacts someone else. In Canada, we have universal health care, so if you hurt yourself we pay for it. In the states, if any of your health care is subsidized, which I imagine it is in part (tax breaks to the hospital?) then you face the same predicament. Emergency crews also have to respond to your road pizza situation when you plaster yourself to the cement (and over and above the monetary costs, any rescue brings inherent risks).
Do seatbelt laws discourage people from driving? Who cares? If it worked that way then maybe we could make the environment last a little longer. If people are not riding just because of a little thing like helmet laws then they aren't serious enough about biking to make a significant impact on their health. If they were ready to make a serious impact on their health then they wouldn't care about helmets, or if they did for some reason then they'd find an alternative exercise.
I can just imagine some morbidly obese guy sitting there saying, "Yea, totally, if it wasn't for the helmet laws I would definitely be biking everyday. For sure."
I'm in a public sector union. I have no experience with unions in the private sector. On the other hand, for every example of a union doing harm to a company you could bring forward, I could probably find just as many examples of companies doing actual physical harm to employees due to unsafe working practices that probably wouldn't happen with a union to protect them (for example, employees feeling compelled to chase after gas and dashers or dine and dashers so that it won't come out of their paycheques, or so they won't lose their job). I need not go further than around the corner either to find such businesses. But notice that I'm not saying that all private sector companies are guilty of putting their employees at risk, or even that private sectors employees are "net bad." I can also provide examples of companies that are great without a union. In fact, in general I would say that unions probably only form when there is substantial reason for the employees to organize. Who would want to form a union, paying unions dues and perhaps risking getting fired for their efforts, when they are perfectly happy in their job? If companies don't want a union to form then perhaps they should consider treating their employees fairly. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't complain when their employees organize.
In contrast, you are essentially writing off unions, at least in the private sector. I think there is more nuance to this discussion than "private sector unions are net bad" (with the point being we should abolish them altogether? If that's not your point then I have no idea what your point is.)
And why 100 years? What has happened in the last 100 years (i.e. since 1912)? Well the civil rights movement, gender pay equity (or moving closer to it), the right for women to vote, minimum wages, attempts to gain a living wage, pension reform, universal healthcare in Canada, equal rights for gay and transgender, rules/laws concerning child labour. I could go on, but if you really want to roll back the changes many unions have had a heavy hand in over the last 100 years, that is if you want to roll back labour practices to 1912, then I don't know how we can carry this conversation forward.
Also I've said repeatedly I don't know about opting out of dues in practice. You should re-read my comments. I stated the law as I understood it in my first post. And then I acknowledged repeatedly that I don't know about how it works in practice. I am not spouting falsehoods, rather I am acknowledging that I don't know. I would appreciate you speaking to what I have said rather than taking down an imagined strawman.
I don't feel like looking it up case law because I don't care. But I am not spouting falsehoods. And I will point out that while you say you are well researched on this matter, it's hard to take you seriously, because if your comments about what I have said are any indication of your reading comprehension in general, I find it hard to believe you've understood the law and rulings as a court would.
Anyways I'm done with this discussion, and I will not be responding anymore, nor will I read your response if you choose to make one. Life is not black and white, good and evil. There are pros and cons to everything and you would do well to remember that.
As I said I don't know about opting out, and any court decision. Have you tried and failed? Tell me about your experience. Which union are you?
As far as them acting against you...well I don't know your union. It sounds like you are against unions as a matter of principle. But might I suggest that you attend some meetings and put forth suggestions that you feel would benefit members? Stomping your feet isn't going to do anything.
That's what I did. I felt like my union wasn't being fair to a certain type of worker. I made a stink, and got some changes.
If they genuinely aren't working for you you could always section 12 them (or the equivalent in your province). That's when you sue them for not representing you.
If they aren't accommodating your religious belief (against unions) you could take them to human rights tribunal. My employer deducts the union dues and gives them to union, so I'm not even sure if it's the unions decision to let you opt out, it might be the employer. Again I've never met a person that wanted to opt out of our union (not to say they don't exist).
It's hard to take someone seriously who thinks unions are all bad. I've recognized that unions can be a force for bad. Likewise employers/managers can be a force to good and bad as well, it depends on the people. If you want to carry this conversation forward then you should recognize the good unions have brought society, as well as the bad.
That was quite the conspiracy rant.
I don't know about a court decision nullifying the option to not pay dues, so I can't really talk about that. I haven't met anyone that tried to do that.
I'm an executive at large in my union.
I'm not sure about any threats of violence (on either part). I am aware of employers in the distant past threatening employees with violence or actually hurting employees. I'm also aware of managers that were following around employees (spying on them) at a non-union site before they opted to join our union, because they were organizing. Probably somewhere in the history of unions there was an ugly situation where unions engaged in nasty tactics. I know that at one time unions were involved in turning in "Japs" to be interned. Unions have bad history as well as good...because they are made of people and people can be good and bad. But not as one sided as you make it out to be though.
As far as unions doing whatever they want with the money...that's a pretty big claim, and patently false. In my union, any member can make a motion and then there is a vote. We meet a minimum of 9 times per year, with a minimum quorum and all. Annual meeting too. Every position on the executive is elected. People get voted out. Not sure where you're getting your "facts" or whatever you want to call them, but you are way off base.
In BC, you can opt not to join the union, but you still have to pay the equivalent of the dues to a charity of your choice. The point being that the decision to not join a union should be one of personal belief rather than monetary.
I still like the idea that I read on slashdot where you have a cherry picker "gas station" and a modular battery and rather than charge it at the station you replace the battery, with the station constantly charging batteries. Kind of like water coolers, replacing the jug for a refill rather than refilling the jug on site.
Edison wasn't an inventor. He was a capitalist who stole things from other people.
I read it once on the oatmeal so it must be true.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla
Good perspective. Thanks!
I pay $20, for 50mbps down and 25 up, 250Gb per month. I use Novus, which is available in select buildings in Vancouver.
I think that hydrogen birthday balloons together with birthday candles would be a lot of fun.