Yeah, there are a lot of things that people refuse to believe because it makes them uncomfortable but hey, you keep on believing the Earth is flat and the moon landing was faked.
You mean like "analysts surmising" sorry, let's de-PR speak that. What it says is "analysts guessing/inferring/believing without evidence that the disruption was retaliation... for banning the russians". The article doesn't offer any actual proof of this, and you fell hook, line and sinker for creative wordplay. Using surmise in that sentence in the first place openly states that they have *no* evidence or proof of this at all, they even told you that.
You probably haven't noticed, but the media has been very selective in exactly what words it's been using the last 3-4mo, and using words that have falling out of popular use in the last 30 years but sound/read as important. Pay attention, they lied to you and you believed them.
Notice the part that says, "this indictment"? There have been new indictments coming every few days now. New guilty pleas. New Trump officials (and former Trump officials) cooperating with Mueller.
Yeah and you know what they stem from? From when Muller was working for the Podesta group(the guy who ran Hillary's Campaign). AKA this is what is called a fishing expedition. Because Muller didn't/failed to properly disclose, and the people had no knowledge they can be indicted because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" unless you're Hillary Clinton with your own private email server and you've got buddies inside the agency who can 'shift' the wording on memo's to make it far less serious. Or Loretta Lynch using an alias in order to cover her tracks, avoid legal requirements for retention and so on.
Neither of those things is true. Flynn's guilty plea is still there and in force, and the new judge on the Flynn case has clarified his request and completely debunked the news that turned up in the alt-right media last week.
Not what happened. The plea is in-force, but the new judge that replaced the previous one because of a CoI demanded that the muller investigation produce the exculpatory evidence in the case that by law they were required to produce. Instead of doing that and continuing to stonewall this judge, they then opened another indictment in another jurisdiction(aka judge shopping) about 30mi outside of DC, effectively to have him fight two cases on two different fronts. The guy is basically bankrupt from fighting the first case, and Muller seems to be going out of his way to ensure that he can't mount any legal defense because he can't afford to.
In the US, very few chip cards come with chip PIN's (these are distinct from credit card ATM PIN's for cash advances); most have you sign something or nothing at all.
Here's how it works up here. Bank card + pin = direct withdrawal from your bank account(see Interac system). CC, again requires a pin. CC+Pin = billing directly to your CC. You don't sign for things up here unless there's a widespread terminal failure and the company still has an old fashioned carbon-copy style credit device available.
So the US is still 10-15 years behind Canada then is what you're saying. Up here if you don't enter a pin, you can't complete the transaction. I also mentioned the cloning bit in my comment, which makes the original posters point about "omg chip & pin is a failure, it was all their fault" again worthless. Chip & pin didn't fail in that case which is what they were trying to make as a point.
Electromechanical devices (with moving parts) fail more than a properly designed all-electronic control panel. Key phrase: properly designed.
Except for those millions of cases where they don't right? Ask yourself how many times you've heard from someone saying that their brand new electronic whatever has already failed in warranty, but their parents 30 year old whatever is still chugging along and hasn't stopped. Or you have some asshat of a company like Samsung that built their fridges to fail just outside of the warranty phase(all electronic bits fyi). Here's the thing, we're really good at making electromechanical devices that last long, and have low rates of failure. The relays and emr-switches that our company uses have a failure rate of 1:900k over 10 years. They have to handle wet, dry, humid, extreme heat/cold and keep going day in and day out.
I'll agree that some stuff has a higher failure rate, cars for example with non-electronic ignition had multiple points of failure and were prone for the simplest no-start problems mostly relating to the rotor. On the other side, for every $1k central console in car that fails and takes out the: radio, navigation, heater, signals, and so on. That 20 year old clunker next to you with all mechanical relays, wires, and switches is still going strong.
So you handed them your pin, and it's their fault? You understand how this works right? You plug your card into the terminal, then enter your pin. If it was compromised, then it was a plain old skim because the business hadn't rolled over to chip & pin and were exempt from requiring *you* from entering it.
Every gas station in Canada uses chip & pin, most were rolled out a year and change before it became mandatory up here. The real problem up here since everything is chip & pin is actually banks and ATM's that are owned by banks but deployed in variety stores and so on. Hitting banks is the big one right now, the fakes are getting damned elaborate too replacing the entire front bezel to pull the card data and pin.
Well that's because electromechanical devices have a low failure rate. If they can't charge out the ass by forcing the customer to buy an entire new front-end array for half the cost of the washing machine it's really bad for the bottom line.
Now I am working as a repair tech on stuff that includes John Deere products....
Bet that's fun, most farmers around here dumped their Deere stuff a few years ago when they decided to be pricks over the farmers ability to control their equipment. You can pick up a 2yr old Deere tractor loaded to the gills for $20k but no-one is buying. On the other side of that, the price for Fendt and Deutz-Fahr have gone up around 30% and there's parts shortages.
~25 years of sexual harassment training, that point becoming narrower and narrower as a definition every year up to this point where the #metoo moment declared that talking is now harassment?
Or would you like to roll with the point that everyone who's ever worked in a workplace knows that gaggle of women who go out of their way to make everyone else's life a living hell, and know that if it had been a man doing the same thing - under those same rules he would have lost his job 3 years ago.
Or can we roll with the claims of "it happened years ago, my word is my truth, but I have no actual evidence." But you really gotta believe me, because female, and listen and believe. And if you don't, you're a dirty white male, a misogynist, and probably commit sexual assault too! Where a male who made the same claim would be laughed at and rightly so.
He wasn't public about his views until Google someone in the clique decided to dump his memo online and attack him. Then all bets were off, go read his court filing. They(google) directly asked for things from employees, he directly responded. Got no response. Asked again, got no response. Then had multiple altercations with people who attacked him on the memo.
The same reason you'd travel to China if you were looking to manufacture something cheap on the fly. Or you went to Laos or the Philippines if you want clothing made. This isn't rocket surgery by any stretch of the imagination and if you have capital to be rolling into a country, they're far more likely to "ignore what they consider harmful or illegal" then one of their own citizens which would end up with them being executed.
You ever wonder why the rich westerners in Saudi Arabia live in compounds and if you're female you can't even walk outside? I'll give you a hint, even if you're rolling around in cash there's a limit to exactly how far they'll put up with you.
Factories and the growth of cities kinda took that away, you had to buy most things which meant you had to work more for money to pay with money. That people at some point only worked down to 10 hours/week I think is a naive fantasy. If they did I suspect it was because that paid enough money for the things they needed money for, while they got better "paid" supporting themselves some other way the rest of the time. It's not like today where you hire a carpenter, plumber, carpenter, mechanic etc. or buy whatever you need in the store or online at the slightest hint of trouble. This was more "build your own homestead" times.
The last house I was in was built in the 1820's, the guy who owned it listed all of his work and kept it on parchment or wrote it down on the walls of the garage for records. On top of him being a artisan cabinetmaker, he designed half the old part of towns interiors and it was done as a crown commission. Even with all the work he did, he probably didn't top out at 25hrs/week and lived a 'wealthy' lifestyle for the time. That was on top of the land he was farming and all the rest, again all considered he didn't work more then 25hrs/week. The thing you don't understand is you might roll into town and get John to fix your plow, or Tim to fix the harness if you couldn't do it yourself. But everyone had to know the basics of black smithing if they were farmers, repair of your own equipment because sometimes it also wasn't worth traveling 2hrs into town waiting 3hrs for the work to be done for a broken hinge you could hammer out yourself. Everyone pretty much had the basic knowledge to get them off the ground because their parents did the same thing. And if you didn't know, James' family down the road likely did and could give you a hand.
Then again, even the family on my fathers side who came over in the 1800's to Canada, didn't work much more then 20hrs a week and had around 900 acres that they were farming. Sure the day started early, and there was always something else to be done but between having 14(survived out of 19) kids there was a lot of hands for all that work.
Pre-industrial revolution, the 40 hour work week was an absurd fantasy. A lazy slacker would only work 100 hours a week, and that was minimal subsistence living.
Not true on that. A lazy slacker might only work 60 hours/week when harvest/etc came up. Generally that minimal subsistence living most people worked 20-30hrs/week or less as there were other things that were required. Even people who were in highly skilled jobs could work less then 10hrs/week.
A 40hr work week was common even ~80 years ago, that's not really the last few decades by any stretch. If it wasn't for the fact there was basically a giant pissing match between workers, businesses and government it likely never would have happened anyway. On top of that the entire history of the 40hr work week stretches back to the 1860's, prior to that people simply worked the required hours for the job for the given day. That might be a 10hr day today, it might only be 2hrs tomorrow. A flat 40hr/week didn't exist.
I'll believe THAT when I hear it from the bum on the street instead of a typical/. 1%er.
Ask that bum on the street if they want to be there. You might not realize this but a lot of them do, some don't. You can't force a person to do what you want.
What we need is grants or stipends so people forced to change jobs in mid life can afford to live through the apprenticeship. To anyone saying people should just tighten their belts and cram 3 families into a single family dwelling (most often someone making well over the median in a job that isn't threatened), I say "after you".
Sure, if you can get the government to pony up the money on that instead of say spending it on illegals, I'd be right with you. Most western governments don't have their priorities straight on things like this. Going by your UID, you're likely old enough to remember the hyperinflation crash of the 80's. We've already been there in terms of cramming families into a single family dwelling. You simply missed the part where things have been so good over the last 35 years that even the poorest today are vastly richer then a family just starting out in 1981.
Depends on where you are. Even at that, your average electrician is going to have an easier job finding work then you are. On top of that, your average university degree doesn't represent flexibility. It represents your ability to return accumulated and learned knowledge that's been handed to you.
Tell those 4 places to look in the oil patch. But unless they're willing to drop $90k-150k/year, they're not going to pull those machinists away. The big idea has been for the last ~30 years to push kids not to go into trades, that university was the better choice for everyone(it isn't). Now there's millions of jobs open in trades(est. 8m empty FT trade jobs), but a glut of people who can't find work because they spent $250k on a degree that gets them nothing with no real world skills. On top of that the people who've gone through university are unwilling to do those well paying but hard and dirty jobs(this is the poor work ethic issue that Mike Rowe likes to talk about).
My apprenticeship(mechanic) was probably one of the most fulfilling things I'd ever done, but I didn't realize it until I was older. For someone in their 30's or even 40's, with a family that step into an apprenticeship is hard, mainly because the rate of pay is so poor for those first several years. If you're going down that way, it means you need to move in with other family and be ready for several years of severe belt tightening. The min wage when I was apprenticing was $6.85/hr(1990s), I was paid a rate of $2.25/hr. A cousin of mine did his diesel mechanic apprenticeship ~8 years ago, and they were only paid $3.40/hr(min wage I think was around $9 or $10/hr at the time). On top of that the tool layouts can be expensive, figure $15k-30k or so first 4 years if you're seriously going in.
Doesn't really explain women being paid less for doing identical office jobs though.
They're not, that's illegal. They're not *earning* the same because they're unwilling to stick around for another 4 hours after quitting time.
Doesn't explain toxic masculinity leading to depression and suicide and violence among men either.
Oh boy there's the bullshit one. "Toxic masculinity" is right there beside "white male tears" when males point out that there's systemic issues that aren't being address and they see no way out except through suicide. You know, like how a women can destroy a mans career and life by a false rape allegation, or fake sexual harassment claim. And there's almost never any punishment for that false claim.
I agree. This stupid meme about straight white males being oppressed now needs to stop. It's not true, it's never that simple and all it does it make things worse for straight white men.
Straight white males aren't arguing about being oppressed. Men are arguing that there's issues causing serious problems for men, and that in many cases they're systemically in the system. You know, like family courts? False rape/sexual harassment claims by women. High suicide rates which feminists will hand wave at(kinda like the posters which say 1:10 suicide victims is female), oh but the other 9 are male right?
Some are apparently too scared to even talk to women now.
Well I wonder why that would be? Man in a workplace to a female coworker: Would you like to go grab a coffee sometime? Women in that workplace to the man: No thanks. Women begins screeching sexual harassment to HR.
What's the opposite of virtue signalling? As we know, opposites share a common profile. Your admission of defeat is implied.
Actually engaging in volunteer work/work that does the opposite. Whining "#bringbackourgirls" does nothing, absolutely nothing. That's virtue signaling. Acting in a manner to directly disrupt the organization, or in some of the most extreme cases like with isis where people would pool money and buy women *out* of slavery? You see the difference yet?
Whining #metoo does nothing either, especially when feminists circle the wagons around female abusers. This is your chance to explain what you think the opposite of this virtue signalling is.
I'm not sure if you are a troll or if you actually believe that ludicrous statement, so I'll continue assuming that you believe that tech companies are "promoting minorities without merit".
I'll give you a hint. You can look at many tech companies and find people who were promoted based on gender or race, over far more competent people. If you work in a fortune 400 company like I do, you'll easily find by talking to people the people who were promoted to middle management positions not based on ability but because of the demands for "more representation" by very loud groups of activists.
Pretty much every single study shows that when you have an equally qualified white male and some minority (female, hispanic, black, whatever), the white male is far more likely to be hired and to be promoted.
You mean like that study in australia? Where it was 100% colour and genderblind. Well it wasn't 'white males' it was males, in general. Ask yourself why, it's not the dunning-kruger effect in that case, but the answer is likely something that you're not going to like because it goes against your ideology.
Tech (and other) companies are trying to remove the pro-white-male bias so that there is no bias. This is very imperfect and is will often fail, in both directions.
So when companies do and they have, and people are hired based on it being blind. And more males are still being hired(like it's been shown), that's obviously because it's a pro-white-male bias? Have you ever worked anywhere else in the world?
The rest of your comment was just whining about "feminists", which implies that you don't know any.
You could have simply said "The rest of your comment makes me uncomfortable, because they've done these things and I'm unwilling to agree that there's a swath of feminists who are terrible people." Why don't you go look up that MRA meeting(to discuss legal bias against men) where feminists pulled fire alarms and explain to everyone how that's egalitarian and feminists were supporting that, or how it's egalitarian to shut down a mens shelter.
It's pretty obvious by your own comment that you haven't explored the actual issues that exist in society which you, would also claim are 'run by the patriarchy'(this going by your own responses so far).
Thus by the letter of law he has committed assault., Now there might be more to that law, but you picked the part to quote. Things like reasonableness and interactions with other laws...
No, see this is again you failing to understand the law.
"Two conditions are necessary:" - More or less.
1) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts (Fuck you, you piece of shit. You see this knife? Yeah fuck off, fuck you)
OR
2)while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, OR impedes another person (Fuck you, you piece of shit. You see this knife? Yeah fuck you, fuck you!) - Person attempts to go around. (Fuck you, don't you fucking try to walk away.) Aggressor *impedes* another person
OR
3)while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, OR begs Person openly wearing weapon - (hey give me some money.)
The above is the letter of the law.
1) openly wearing or carrying a weapon or in imitation thereof. - he has a cardboard sword, that isn't a weapon but it is an imitation weapon and he is carrying it. So we check that one as true.
No we can't. Because it doesn't become a weapon until it's used under the definition of assault. Until then it's a prop, and in turn is not a weapon.
2) he accosts or impedes another person or begs. - he isn't accosting, he isn't impeding, he is however begging and that you only need to fulfill one option in a list or "or" terms. So we chat one as true too.
Fulfillment to use the weapon to commit assault TO accost, impede, or beg is also a requirement.
FYI panhandling and aggressive panhandling have their own separate section.
None of those are subjective. Intentionally is a direct specific meaning. Threatens is a direct specific meaning. Believe on reasonable grounds is specific. All three of those are defined in the criminal code as to what constitutes each. Again, this is a case of a persons lack of understanding in law and their inability to understand that law is written in a specific scope.
You should watch the video of her saying that. There were massive cheers from the crowd, that wasn't an isolated case its something that resonated with many people she was speaking to. Keep in mind that Ellison(no 2) is on record supporting a black ethnostate within the US(that by progressive values makes him a nazi by the way). But you don't seem to understand why Trump ascended to the top of their party, I'll give you a hint. It didn't have anything to do with Low Energy Jeb "please clap" Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, there are a lot of things that people refuse to believe because it makes them uncomfortable but hey, you keep on believing the Earth is flat and the moon landing was faked.
You mean like "analysts surmising" sorry, let's de-PR speak that. What it says is "analysts guessing/inferring/believing without evidence that the disruption was retaliation ... for banning the russians". The article doesn't offer any actual proof of this, and you fell hook, line and sinker for creative wordplay. Using surmise in that sentence in the first place openly states that they have *no* evidence or proof of this at all, they even told you that.
You probably haven't noticed, but the media has been very selective in exactly what words it's been using the last 3-4mo, and using words that have falling out of popular use in the last 30 years but sound/read as important. Pay attention, they lied to you and you believed them.
Notice the part that says, "this indictment"? There have been new indictments coming every few days now. New guilty pleas. New Trump officials (and former Trump officials) cooperating with Mueller.
Yeah and you know what they stem from? From when Muller was working for the Podesta group(the guy who ran Hillary's Campaign). AKA this is what is called a fishing expedition. Because Muller didn't/failed to properly disclose, and the people had no knowledge they can be indicted because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" unless you're Hillary Clinton with your own private email server and you've got buddies inside the agency who can 'shift' the wording on memo's to make it far less serious. Or Loretta Lynch using an alias in order to cover her tracks, avoid legal requirements for retention and so on.
Neither of those things is true. Flynn's guilty plea is still there and in force, and the new judge on the Flynn case has clarified his request and completely debunked the news that turned up in the alt-right media last week.
Not what happened. The plea is in-force, but the new judge that replaced the previous one because of a CoI demanded that the muller investigation produce the exculpatory evidence in the case that by law they were required to produce. Instead of doing that and continuing to stonewall this judge, they then opened another indictment in another jurisdiction(aka judge shopping) about 30mi outside of DC, effectively to have him fight two cases on two different fronts. The guy is basically bankrupt from fighting the first case, and Muller seems to be going out of his way to ensure that he can't mount any legal defense because he can't afford to.
In the US, very few chip cards come with chip PIN's (these are distinct from credit card ATM PIN's for cash advances); most have you sign something or nothing at all.
Here's how it works up here. Bank card + pin = direct withdrawal from your bank account(see Interac system). CC, again requires a pin. CC+Pin = billing directly to your CC. You don't sign for things up here unless there's a widespread terminal failure and the company still has an old fashioned carbon-copy style credit device available.
So the US is still 10-15 years behind Canada then is what you're saying. Up here if you don't enter a pin, you can't complete the transaction. I also mentioned the cloning bit in my comment, which makes the original posters point about "omg chip & pin is a failure, it was all their fault" again worthless. Chip & pin didn't fail in that case which is what they were trying to make as a point.
Electromechanical devices (with moving parts) fail more than a properly designed all-electronic control panel. Key phrase: properly designed.
Except for those millions of cases where they don't right? Ask yourself how many times you've heard from someone saying that their brand new electronic whatever has already failed in warranty, but their parents 30 year old whatever is still chugging along and hasn't stopped. Or you have some asshat of a company like Samsung that built their fridges to fail just outside of the warranty phase(all electronic bits fyi). Here's the thing, we're really good at making electromechanical devices that last long, and have low rates of failure. The relays and emr-switches that our company uses have a failure rate of 1:900k over 10 years. They have to handle wet, dry, humid, extreme heat/cold and keep going day in and day out.
I'll agree that some stuff has a higher failure rate, cars for example with non-electronic ignition had multiple points of failure and were prone for the simplest no-start problems mostly relating to the rotor. On the other side, for every $1k central console in car that fails and takes out the: radio, navigation, heater, signals, and so on. That 20 year old clunker next to you with all mechanical relays, wires, and switches is still going strong.
So you handed them your pin, and it's their fault? You understand how this works right? You plug your card into the terminal, then enter your pin. If it was compromised, then it was a plain old skim because the business hadn't rolled over to chip & pin and were exempt from requiring *you* from entering it.
Every gas station in Canada uses chip & pin, most were rolled out a year and change before it became mandatory up here. The real problem up here since everything is chip & pin is actually banks and ATM's that are owned by banks but deployed in variety stores and so on. Hitting banks is the big one right now, the fakes are getting damned elaborate too replacing the entire front bezel to pull the card data and pin.
Well that's because electromechanical devices have a low failure rate. If they can't charge out the ass by forcing the customer to buy an entire new front-end array for half the cost of the washing machine it's really bad for the bottom line.
Now I am working as a repair tech on stuff that includes John Deere products....
Bet that's fun, most farmers around here dumped their Deere stuff a few years ago when they decided to be pricks over the farmers ability to control their equipment. You can pick up a 2yr old Deere tractor loaded to the gills for $20k but no-one is buying. On the other side of that, the price for Fendt and Deutz-Fahr have gone up around 30% and there's parts shortages.
I wonder what the difference could possibly be.
~25 years of sexual harassment training, that point becoming narrower and narrower as a definition every year up to this point where the #metoo moment declared that talking is now harassment?
Or would you like to roll with the point that everyone who's ever worked in a workplace knows that gaggle of women who go out of their way to make everyone else's life a living hell, and know that if it had been a man doing the same thing - under those same rules he would have lost his job 3 years ago.
Or can we roll with the claims of "it happened years ago, my word is my truth, but I have no actual evidence." But you really gotta believe me, because female, and listen and believe. And if you don't, you're a dirty white male, a misogynist, and probably commit sexual assault too! Where a male who made the same claim would be laughed at and rightly so.
He wasn't public about his views until Google someone in the clique decided to dump his memo online and attack him. Then all bets were off, go read his court filing. They(google) directly asked for things from employees, he directly responded. Got no response. Asked again, got no response. Then had multiple altercations with people who attacked him on the memo.
Then why would Thiel - or Cook - go there at all?
The same reason you'd travel to China if you were looking to manufacture something cheap on the fly. Or you went to Laos or the Philippines if you want clothing made. This isn't rocket surgery by any stretch of the imagination and if you have capital to be rolling into a country, they're far more likely to "ignore what they consider harmful or illegal" then one of their own citizens which would end up with them being executed.
You ever wonder why the rich westerners in Saudi Arabia live in compounds and if you're female you can't even walk outside? I'll give you a hint, even if you're rolling around in cash there's a limit to exactly how far they'll put up with you.
Factories and the growth of cities kinda took that away, you had to buy most things which meant you had to work more for money to pay with money. That people at some point only worked down to 10 hours/week I think is a naive fantasy. If they did I suspect it was because that paid enough money for the things they needed money for, while they got better "paid" supporting themselves some other way the rest of the time. It's not like today where you hire a carpenter, plumber, carpenter, mechanic etc. or buy whatever you need in the store or online at the slightest hint of trouble. This was more "build your own homestead" times.
The last house I was in was built in the 1820's, the guy who owned it listed all of his work and kept it on parchment or wrote it down on the walls of the garage for records. On top of him being a artisan cabinetmaker, he designed half the old part of towns interiors and it was done as a crown commission. Even with all the work he did, he probably didn't top out at 25hrs/week and lived a 'wealthy' lifestyle for the time. That was on top of the land he was farming and all the rest, again all considered he didn't work more then 25hrs/week. The thing you don't understand is you might roll into town and get John to fix your plow, or Tim to fix the harness if you couldn't do it yourself. But everyone had to know the basics of black smithing if they were farmers, repair of your own equipment because sometimes it also wasn't worth traveling 2hrs into town waiting 3hrs for the work to be done for a broken hinge you could hammer out yourself. Everyone pretty much had the basic knowledge to get them off the ground because their parents did the same thing. And if you didn't know, James' family down the road likely did and could give you a hand.
Then again, even the family on my fathers side who came over in the 1800's to Canada, didn't work much more then 20hrs a week and had around 900 acres that they were farming. Sure the day started early, and there was always something else to be done but between having 14(survived out of 19) kids there was a lot of hands for all that work.
Pre-industrial revolution, the 40 hour work week was an absurd fantasy. A lazy slacker would only work 100 hours a week, and that was minimal subsistence living.
Not true on that. A lazy slacker might only work 60 hours/week when harvest/etc came up. Generally that minimal subsistence living most people worked 20-30hrs/week or less as there were other things that were required. Even people who were in highly skilled jobs could work less then 10hrs/week.
A 40hr work week was common even ~80 years ago, that's not really the last few decades by any stretch. If it wasn't for the fact there was basically a giant pissing match between workers, businesses and government it likely never would have happened anyway. On top of that the entire history of the 40hr work week stretches back to the 1860's, prior to that people simply worked the required hours for the job for the given day. That might be a 10hr day today, it might only be 2hrs tomorrow. A flat 40hr/week didn't exist.
I'll believe THAT when I hear it from the bum on the street instead of a typical /. 1%er.
Ask that bum on the street if they want to be there. You might not realize this but a lot of them do, some don't. You can't force a person to do what you want.
What we need is grants or stipends so people forced to change jobs in mid life can afford to live through the apprenticeship. To anyone saying people should just tighten their belts and cram 3 families into a single family dwelling (most often someone making well over the median in a job that isn't threatened), I say "after you".
Sure, if you can get the government to pony up the money on that instead of say spending it on illegals, I'd be right with you. Most western governments don't have their priorities straight on things like this. Going by your UID, you're likely old enough to remember the hyperinflation crash of the 80's. We've already been there in terms of cramming families into a single family dwelling. You simply missed the part where things have been so good over the last 35 years that even the poorest today are vastly richer then a family just starting out in 1981.
Trades tend to be a trap in times of glut.
Depends on where you are. Even at that, your average electrician is going to have an easier job finding work then you are. On top of that, your average university degree doesn't represent flexibility. It represents your ability to return accumulated and learned knowledge that's been handed to you.
Tell those 4 places to look in the oil patch. But unless they're willing to drop $90k-150k/year, they're not going to pull those machinists away. The big idea has been for the last ~30 years to push kids not to go into trades, that university was the better choice for everyone(it isn't). Now there's millions of jobs open in trades(est. 8m empty FT trade jobs), but a glut of people who can't find work because they spent $250k on a degree that gets them nothing with no real world skills. On top of that the people who've gone through university are unwilling to do those well paying but hard and dirty jobs(this is the poor work ethic issue that Mike Rowe likes to talk about).
My apprenticeship(mechanic) was probably one of the most fulfilling things I'd ever done, but I didn't realize it until I was older. For someone in their 30's or even 40's, with a family that step into an apprenticeship is hard, mainly because the rate of pay is so poor for those first several years. If you're going down that way, it means you need to move in with other family and be ready for several years of severe belt tightening. The min wage when I was apprenticing was $6.85/hr(1990s), I was paid a rate of $2.25/hr. A cousin of mine did his diesel mechanic apprenticeship ~8 years ago, and they were only paid $3.40/hr(min wage I think was around $9 or $10/hr at the time). On top of that the tool layouts can be expensive, figure $15k-30k or so first 4 years if you're seriously going in.
Doesn't really explain women being paid less for doing identical office jobs though.
They're not, that's illegal. They're not *earning* the same because they're unwilling to stick around for another 4 hours after quitting time.
Doesn't explain toxic masculinity leading to depression and suicide and violence among men either.
Oh boy there's the bullshit one. "Toxic masculinity" is right there beside "white male tears" when males point out that there's systemic issues that aren't being address and they see no way out except through suicide. You know, like how a women can destroy a mans career and life by a false rape allegation, or fake sexual harassment claim. And there's almost never any punishment for that false claim.
I agree. This stupid meme about straight white males being oppressed now needs to stop. It's not true, it's never that simple and all it does it make things worse for straight white men.
Straight white males aren't arguing about being oppressed. Men are arguing that there's issues causing serious problems for men, and that in many cases they're systemically in the system. You know, like family courts? False rape/sexual harassment claims by women. High suicide rates which feminists will hand wave at(kinda like the posters which say 1:10 suicide victims is female), oh but the other 9 are male right?
Some are apparently too scared to even talk to women now.
Well I wonder why that would be?
Man in a workplace to a female coworker: Would you like to go grab a coffee sometime?
Women in that workplace to the man: No thanks.
Women begins screeching sexual harassment to HR.
What's the opposite of virtue signalling? As we know, opposites share a common profile. Your admission of defeat is implied.
Actually engaging in volunteer work/work that does the opposite. Whining "#bringbackourgirls" does nothing, absolutely nothing. That's virtue signaling. Acting in a manner to directly disrupt the organization, or in some of the most extreme cases like with isis where people would pool money and buy women *out* of slavery? You see the difference yet?
Whining #metoo does nothing either, especially when feminists circle the wagons around female abusers. This is your chance to explain what you think the opposite of this virtue signalling is.
I'm not sure if you are a troll or if you actually believe that ludicrous statement, so I'll continue assuming that you believe that tech companies are "promoting minorities without merit".
I'll give you a hint. You can look at many tech companies and find people who were promoted based on gender or race, over far more competent people. If you work in a fortune 400 company like I do, you'll easily find by talking to people the people who were promoted to middle management positions not based on ability but because of the demands for "more representation" by very loud groups of activists.
Pretty much every single study shows that when you have an equally qualified white male and some minority (female, hispanic, black, whatever), the white male is far more likely to be hired and to be promoted.
You mean like that study in australia? Where it was 100% colour and genderblind. Well it wasn't 'white males' it was males, in general. Ask yourself why, it's not the dunning-kruger effect in that case, but the answer is likely something that you're not going to like because it goes against your ideology.
Tech (and other) companies are trying to remove the pro-white-male bias so that there is no bias. This is very imperfect and is will often fail, in both directions.
So when companies do and they have, and people are hired based on it being blind. And more males are still being hired(like it's been shown), that's obviously because it's a pro-white-male bias? Have you ever worked anywhere else in the world?
The rest of your comment was just whining about "feminists", which implies that you don't know any.
You could have simply said "The rest of your comment makes me uncomfortable, because they've done these things and I'm unwilling to agree that there's a swath of feminists who are terrible people." Why don't you go look up that MRA meeting(to discuss legal bias against men) where feminists pulled fire alarms and explain to everyone how that's egalitarian and feminists were supporting that, or how it's egalitarian to shut down a mens shelter.
It's pretty obvious by your own comment that you haven't explored the actual issues that exist in society which you, would also claim are 'run by the patriarchy'(this going by your own responses so far).
Thus by the letter of law he has committed assault., Now there might be more to that law, but you picked the part to quote. Things like reasonableness and interactions with other laws...
No, see this is again you failing to understand the law.
"Two conditions are necessary:" - More or less.
1) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts
(Fuck you, you piece of shit. You see this knife? Yeah fuck off, fuck you)
OR
2)while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, OR impedes another person
(Fuck you, you piece of shit. You see this knife? Yeah fuck you, fuck you!) - Person attempts to go around. (Fuck you, don't you fucking try to walk away.) Aggressor *impedes* another person
OR
3)while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, OR begs
Person openly wearing weapon - (hey give me some money.)
The above is the letter of the law.
1) openly wearing or carrying a weapon or in imitation thereof. - he has a cardboard sword, that isn't a weapon but it is an imitation weapon and he is carrying it. So we check that one as true.
No we can't. Because it doesn't become a weapon until it's used under the definition of assault. Until then it's a prop, and in turn is not a weapon.
2) he accosts or impedes another person or begs. - he isn't accosting, he isn't impeding, he is however begging and that you only need to fulfill one option in a list or "or" terms. So we chat one as true too.
Fulfillment to use the weapon to commit assault TO accost, impede, or beg is also a requirement.
FYI panhandling and aggressive panhandling have their own separate section.
None of those are subjective. Intentionally is a direct specific meaning. Threatens is a direct specific meaning. Believe on reasonable grounds is specific. All three of those are defined in the criminal code as to what constitutes each. Again, this is a case of a persons lack of understanding in law and their inability to understand that law is written in a specific scope.
You should watch the video of her saying that. There were massive cheers from the crowd, that wasn't an isolated case its something that resonated with many people she was speaking to. Keep in mind that Ellison(no 2) is on record supporting a black ethnostate within the US(that by progressive values makes him a nazi by the way). But you don't seem to understand why Trump ascended to the top of their party, I'll give you a hint. It didn't have anything to do with Low Energy Jeb "please clap" Bush.