Did the same company design this site that did the federal healthcare.gov? You'd think that after that disaster they'd be looking at ways to handle spikes of traffic.
I don't know how it works in Chicago land, but speeds are supposed to reflect the average speed of traffic on the road. The problem I have with automated enforcement is that it doesn't take into account that speed limits are well below where they should be on most streets. There's a highway near me that was designed for traffic to do 70mph but the road can't be signed for it because the state police won't sign off. So it sits at 55mph and everyone does 70mph anyway, and a few get ticketed each day. Same thing with surface streets.
How do you know that other parties have fewer needs? I don't like seeing carve-outs that are specific to one group over another. Insurance was meant to be a risk pool. Instead, it has turned into a discount card, or even a free pass. Hospitals are expensive, and having a child is super expensive, I get that. But is that reason enough to pull from a risk pool that also goes to pay for things like cancer, multiple sclerosis, life threatening injury, and so on? People generally don't know that they're going to get cancer, and that's why we all pay into insurance. You may never collect, but you can't know. Pregnancy is predictable. You choose to take on that challenge.
You may have someone suffering from a serious disease, and they're hit with high copayments, coinsurance until hitting a high out of pocket maximum for the year, and expensive medications. Meanwhile, you have companies forking over thousands for women to freeze eggs. Doesn't that bother you? We're focusing in on people living their every day lives and ignoring the needs of people who are seriously ill or injured. People with serious health problems have to suffer through their conditions, plus work, plus paying for everything, meanwhile Sandra Fluke complains about paying for her own birth control while she gets a free ride to an Ivy League school. It's insane.
Sounds like the gun control debate. It isn't the words on the screen that's the problem, it's the mentally ill person that's the problem, and our society's unwillingness to address the issue of mental illness.
Your solution is to modify the law to allow corps to bring as much low cost labor as they want? Now you've suppressed wages to the point of significantly lowering the standard of living for everyone. That causes drops in tax revenue which hurts schools, fire, police, etc.. The whole point of quotas is to ensure that we don't bring in more people than our communities can handle.
Paid police might actually be better. There is little incentive for police to investigate a single stolen car or even a simple assault. You'll get more sympathy and assistance from your insurer.
They'd love to have more of you down here in the states. I'd rather have pay services where I have some illusion of control over how my income is spent. My goal in life isn't to be a servant to the government.
You don't see your gross wages up there? You'll never hold that actual amount in your hands, but it was your money before the government made off with it. You call it free but admit that part of your income goes to it. It's not really free then, is it?
You can't get a solution like that. State taxes are the responsibility of each of the fifty states. You'd have to get every one of them to reform their own tax laws, amend the US Constitution, or violate state sovereignty. None of those are going to happen. IMO, none of those should happen. Tame the federal beast and let the states regulate themselves.
There's no such thing as free school or free health care. Someone is paying for it.
The ironic part is that the Hollywood elitists are very much in favor of "spreading the wealth around", yet many of them now do their work in Canada because it ends up being cheaper. So at home in the states, they're all for "free" stuff, but when it comes to their own incomes, they leave the country to earn their living.
It doesn't make much sense to me either, yet I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Not only do companies lose innovators when this type of thing happens, but they're arming their competition. All those bright folks they cut loose, and especially those that decide to leave on their own.. where will they go? To competitors, of course. It seems really short sighted, particularly when the company isn't in dire shape financially.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the same company design this site that did the federal healthcare.gov? You'd think that after that disaster they'd be looking at ways to handle spikes of traffic.
I don't know how it works in Chicago land, but speeds are supposed to reflect the average speed of traffic on the road. The problem I have with automated enforcement is that it doesn't take into account that speed limits are well below where they should be on most streets. There's a highway near me that was designed for traffic to do 70mph but the road can't be signed for it because the state police won't sign off. So it sits at 55mph and everyone does 70mph anyway, and a few get ticketed each day. Same thing with surface streets.
Increasing the time on yellow encourages more people to proceed through even if it was safe to stop.
Office menus? Careful, they'll take that as an endorsement of ribbons. We replaced everything with ribbons! See? No more menus!
They probably didn't read it either.
He made a small donation to a popular cause. He's not demonic.
The truth hurts sometimes, deal with it.
It's interesting given that Mozilla fired their CEO that invented JavaScript. Is there a social justice warrior game in this bundle?
One of a long list of things that California gets wrong.
How do you know that other parties have fewer needs? I don't like seeing carve-outs that are specific to one group over another. Insurance was meant to be a risk pool. Instead, it has turned into a discount card, or even a free pass. Hospitals are expensive, and having a child is super expensive, I get that. But is that reason enough to pull from a risk pool that also goes to pay for things like cancer, multiple sclerosis, life threatening injury, and so on? People generally don't know that they're going to get cancer, and that's why we all pay into insurance. You may never collect, but you can't know. Pregnancy is predictable. You choose to take on that challenge.
You may have someone suffering from a serious disease, and they're hit with high copayments, coinsurance until hitting a high out of pocket maximum for the year, and expensive medications. Meanwhile, you have companies forking over thousands for women to freeze eggs. Doesn't that bother you? We're focusing in on people living their every day lives and ignoring the needs of people who are seriously ill or injured. People with serious health problems have to suffer through their conditions, plus work, plus paying for everything, meanwhile Sandra Fluke complains about paying for her own birth control while she gets a free ride to an Ivy League school. It's insane.
Pregnancy is not a disability.
Sounds like the gun control debate. It isn't the words on the screen that's the problem, it's the mentally ill person that's the problem, and our society's unwillingness to address the issue of mental illness.
"What if a connected wheelchair spent all of its time far from the home of the person to whom it was assigned?"
What if we lived in a country where people had a right to privacy?
Clones..
Clones in five years.
I think many of us would prefer to separate it while still being employed.
If only we had elected that guy that campaigned on hope and change.
Your solution is to modify the law to allow corps to bring as much low cost labor as they want? Now you've suppressed wages to the point of significantly lowering the standard of living for everyone. That causes drops in tax revenue which hurts schools, fire, police, etc.. The whole point of quotas is to ensure that we don't bring in more people than our communities can handle.
Paid police might actually be better. There is little incentive for police to investigate a single stolen car or even a simple assault. You'll get more sympathy and assistance from your insurer.
The people that came up with this inane idea aren't twats too? Tossing stuff in other people's bins was the first thing I thought of too.
They'd love to have more of you down here in the states. I'd rather have pay services where I have some illusion of control over how my income is spent. My goal in life isn't to be a servant to the government.
You don't see your gross wages up there? You'll never hold that actual amount in your hands, but it was your money before the government made off with it. You call it free but admit that part of your income goes to it. It's not really free then, is it?
You can't get a solution like that. State taxes are the responsibility of each of the fifty states. You'd have to get every one of them to reform their own tax laws, amend the US Constitution, or violate state sovereignty. None of those are going to happen. IMO, none of those should happen. Tame the federal beast and let the states regulate themselves.
You're mixing state and federal taxes. The feds can't act on state taxes without throwing out what little is left of the US Constitution.
There's no such thing as free school or free health care. Someone is paying for it.
The ironic part is that the Hollywood elitists are very much in favor of "spreading the wealth around", yet many of them now do their work in Canada because it ends up being cheaper. So at home in the states, they're all for "free" stuff, but when it comes to their own incomes, they leave the country to earn their living.
It doesn't make much sense to me either, yet I've seen it happen with my own eyes. Not only do companies lose innovators when this type of thing happens, but they're arming their competition. All those bright folks they cut loose, and especially those that decide to leave on their own.. where will they go? To competitors, of course. It seems really short sighted, particularly when the company isn't in dire shape financially.
Are you agreeing with me? Do you support corporate welfare? Should taxpayers being helping the well-off buy Teslas?