Maybe he should have said "isn't working"? Did you even read the article? Two words: Death Spiral. And like all proper liberals, the proposed solution is to raise taxes. Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
Did you? The proposed solution is to raise fares. Unless you equate that to a tax. They could probably support it with a subsidy or something but the article doesn't mention that. Is it a public service though or a private one? Without mass transit a place like NY will grind to a halt. You think traffic is bad there now? Maybe even make it free funded by a few dollars extra on everyone's tax but that would probably make half of you literally shit a brick and you'd rather watch it fall then complain about the consequences.
Well, if it's your device and it's your choice then that's fair enough I guess, up to you. But as an employer mandated tracking and access device, no way. I agree though there are way bigger actual problems than this largely hypothetical stuff. The technology exists but it's not likely it will implemented this way on a large scale, maybe the odd place or so that consider it a bit of a novelty.
And which she isn’t employed to meaning she’s not subject to the rules. Try again faggot.
So she's just just a person wandering the white house, talking to everyone, sending emails and doing whatever because shes the pres' kid and that's totally? Just because you might not be technically employed doesn't mean rules don't apply to you, especially there.
Why especially if it's for work? The criteria should not be if it's for work or not, it should be that *you* are in control of its data.
Privacy issues and all that aside because what happens when you change jobs? Who owns it? Are they going to want their chip back? Are the next company going to want to put their own chip in? There's literally no advantage over something you wear like an ID card other than it can't be lost and lot's of disadvantages before you even get to the 1984 stuff.
Meanwhile, what happens to the property values of the homes the tunnels pass under? While there may be no noticeable impacts on the properties, the perception of having a train and a big tunnel running beneath your house can only have a negative effect on the price of a home and how easy it will be to sell. The local (state) politicians don't care how much of a waste the tunnel is because they just view it as a way to make jobs.
Unless it puts you close to a convenient station going to a desirable destination, then it's a plus. Not to mention the ground is riddled with tunnels for pipes and sewers and all that fun invisible stuff.
It's a standard TBM. Making a tunnel. Cool, yes, but what's the advancement here? Is is any faster or cheaper than existing tunnel-making machines? Can it make smaller tunnels, which could be quite valuable in urban areas? Why all the excitement?
I'd be amazed if this could be enforced by a UK employer anyway. The UK has quite strong employee protection laws, and requiring a surgical procedure to remain employed would be almost unenforceable.
Not after we shit out of the eu with no deal we won't
Jury trials are for when people plead innocent. A jury doesn't decide what happens to a person just if they are guilty or not (beyond reasonable doubt at least). When everyone agrees a person is guilty why does that need to go to a jury? Lying cops and aggressive prosecutors don't do juries any favours at all.
The guy was guilty as sin and admitted it to try and get less than the max sentence. What's the point in wasting time and money on a trial by jury to determine if someone did what they have admitted to doing?
No, it's because the officers had no reason to believe the situation was not what the caller said. They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. If the situation was as reported and they hesitate at the wrong moment innocents die. Their job is to try to stop that from happening and that requires split second decisions and reactions based on what was only determined AFTER THE FACT to be a false report.
Do you really think shoot first ask questions later is appropriate tactic for a police force?
Didn't you hear? If you want to shoot people with impunity join a US police force. Just don't forget to say you felt threatened and you can kill anyone you want.
According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.
Unless that move involved lifting a gun of his own in a threatening manner then why shoot. Do you really think its ok for police to be able to murder anything they deem a POTENTIAL threat and then have to do no more than say that they felt threatened?
Slashdot Mirror
Raising fairs any more will simply guarantee empty trains and busses.
That's why it's a death spiral. Higher fares mean less riders which means higher fares and so on.
Maybe he should have said "isn't working"? Did you even read the article? Two words: Death Spiral. And like all proper liberals, the proposed solution is to raise taxes. Please work on your reading comprehension skills.
Did you? The proposed solution is to raise fares. Unless you equate that to a tax. They could probably support it with a subsidy or something but the article doesn't mention that. Is it a public service though or a private one? Without mass transit a place like NY will grind to a halt. You think traffic is bad there now? Maybe even make it free funded by a few dollars extra on everyone's tax but that would probably make half of you literally shit a brick and you'd rather watch it fall then complain about the consequences.
why you think you need a car?
So you're not trapped within a ~five mile radius of where you live.
Pay a couple of big fat sweaty people to sit in it farting and burping for a couple hours.
when your high. :)
When my high what?
Well, if it's your device and it's your choice then that's fair enough I guess, up to you. But as an employer mandated tracking and access device, no way. I agree though there are way bigger actual problems than this largely hypothetical stuff. The technology exists but it's not likely it will implemented this way on a large scale, maybe the odd place or so that consider it a bit of a novelty.
That might actually be a recommendation. Don't worry though, there would be audio description. Gotta be inclusive and all that.
Was it just me, or did anyone else, when first reading this, say "What's a bioga?"
Isn't that the guy from the new star wars?
And which she isn’t employed to meaning she’s not subject to the rules. Try again faggot.
So she's just just a person wandering the white house, talking to everyone, sending emails and doing whatever because shes the pres' kid and that's totally? Just because you might not be technically employed doesn't mean rules don't apply to you, especially there.
Wow. So much hate, so little knowledge.
Hint: Ivanka is not and never has been married to Donald Trump.
Doesn't stop him from fucking her.
False equivalence. The president's daughter sending emails with a personal account when she doesn't have any official position is not the same.
Yes the president getting his kids to do his work without even setting them up is pretty shitty.
Yes, right after they lock up Hillary.
Here's an idea, put them both in a fight to death. Winner walks free.
And about her use of e-mail?
Prior to becoming a federal employee, she used a personal email for government work.[87]
Emphasis added. Not an issue. She wasn't a Federal employee when she used it - she literally had no way of using Federal e-mail account.
If she's not a federal employee why is she doing government work?
much less an elected government official. L
She's certainly not an elected official.
Especially if it's for work.
Why especially if it's for work? The criteria should not be if it's for work or not, it should be that *you* are in control of its data.
Privacy issues and all that aside because what happens when you change jobs? Who owns it? Are they going to want their chip back? Are the next company going to want to put their own chip in? There's literally no advantage over something you wear like an ID card other than it can't be lost and lot's of disadvantages before you even get to the 1984 stuff.
Meanwhile, what happens to the property values of the homes the tunnels pass under? While there may be no noticeable impacts on the properties, the perception of having a train and a big tunnel running beneath your house can only have a negative effect on the price of a home and how easy it will be to sell. The local (state) politicians don't care how much of a waste the tunnel is because they just view it as a way to make jobs.
Unless it puts you close to a convenient station going to a desirable destination, then it's a plus. Not to mention the ground is riddled with tunnels for pipes and sewers and all that fun invisible stuff.
It's a standard TBM. Making a tunnel. Cool, yes, but what's the advancement here? Is is any faster or cheaper than existing tunnel-making machines? Can it make smaller tunnels, which could be quite valuable in urban areas? Why all the excitement?
It's a Hyper-Tunnel!
I'd be amazed if this could be enforced by a UK employer anyway. The UK has quite strong employee protection laws, and requiring a surgical procedure to remain employed would be almost unenforceable.
Not after we shit out of the eu with no deal we won't
Tattoos have been a thing since way before the 40's
If I had a single piece of advice for anyone thinking about getting an NFC chip implant it would be...don't. Just don't. Especially if it's for work.
Jury trials are for when people plead innocent. A jury doesn't decide what happens to a person just if they are guilty or not (beyond reasonable doubt at least). When everyone agrees a person is guilty why does that need to go to a jury? Lying cops and aggressive prosecutors don't do juries any favours at all.
The guy was guilty as sin and admitted it to try and get less than the max sentence. What's the point in wasting time and money on a trial by jury to determine if someone did what they have admitted to doing?
No, it's because the officers had no reason to believe the situation was not what the caller said. They had to be ready to act in an instant to stop a madman bent on killing others. If the situation was as reported and they hesitate at the wrong moment innocents die. Their job is to try to stop that from happening and that requires split second decisions and reactions based on what was only determined AFTER THE FACT to be a false report.
Do you really think shoot first ask questions later is appropriate tactic for a police force?
Didn't you hear? If you want to shoot people with impunity join a US police force. Just don't forget to say you felt threatened and you can kill anyone you want.
According to the police he was gunned down because he did a suspicious move - a move he was ordered not to do.
Unless that move involved lifting a gun of his own in a threatening manner then why shoot. Do you really think its ok for police to be able to murder anything they deem a POTENTIAL threat and then have to do no more than say that they felt threatened?