Don't be ridiculous. They were leaders, whether you liked them or not. They led nations (and some still do, in North Korea). To say that Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Un are/were not "leaders" is just stupid and defies the very definition. They may not have been "great" leaders, but that's an entirely subjective evaluation and a matter of opinion. Many people believe that Saddam was a far more effective leader of Iraq than its current government which can't even manage to prevent large portions of its territory from being taken over by a bunch of thugs in Toyota pickups. Hitler managed to take over most of continental Europe with his leadership, and Stalin managed to establish an empire with the USSR and turn it into a superpower. To call them not-leaders is just dumb.
Are you going to tell me now that Genghis Khan was just a "bully" and not a leader?
Apparently, to Trump, killing the people who disagree with you makes you a strong and powerful leader.
Um, it does. Why would you think it doesn't?
Saddam Hussein was a strong and powerful leader as well, and he was rather brutal to his enemies as well. Are you going to try to tell me he wasn't strong and powerful?
The Kim regime in North Korea has had strong, powerful leaders, and they certainly killed people who didn't agree with them.
Hitler and Stalin were also strong, powerful leaders, and they had lots of people killed who disagreed with them.
Honestly, to say these leaders were/are not strong and powerful is almost insane.
Fuck you, you piece of shit. You're a shill for the shitty old taxi companies. They have no fucking taximeter, so they're NOT A FUCKING TAXI SERVICE. Get it, you lying sack of shit?
Limos, on average, are much better quality cars than taxis or Uber cars and their prices are a lot higher too.
You're a moron and a liar. Uber cars are nicer than limos. What kind of fucking moron thinks a Lincoln is nicer than a Mercedes? You idiot.
The exception that proves the rule, moron.
Fuck you, asswipe. It's not the exception, it's the norm with Uber. I've ridden in lots of nice cars with Uber.
You can wave your arms to catch a taxi or wait a couple of minutes or less to have a Uber taxi come to where you're waiting.
You're a fucking moron. Outside of Manhattan, you cannot wave your arms to catch a taxi.
So stop comparing uber to limos, unless you're some kind of paid shill.
You liar. You can call for a black car and get one that day, as soon as they can get there. I've done it. You're a shill for the taxis.
According to you, companies never escape the law and are justly punished each time.
Cities have had *years* to prosecute them, and they aren't doing it.
It's a taxi service, that uses internet booking instead of manual hailing of cabs. Just admit it.
Admit that you're a shill, you piece of shit. It's a black car service. If it were a taxi service, it'd be regulated like taxis or prosecuted. Put up or shut up, dick breath.
I apologise if im not following completely, but our isolationist standoff with the USSR cost us two buildings during the terrorist attack of 9/11 and it plunged us into deep recession. How? one of our many proxy wars with the former soviet union was in Afghanistan in which we backed the Mujahadeen in their efforts to resist occupation by Soviet forces. we provided arms and advanced training, and in doing so helped create the Taliban.
That's a bunch of BS.
It did help create the Taliban, but the Taliban had little to do with 9/11, that was Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban sheltered him (or basically ignored him), but that's it.
Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because of the exact reasons that Osama himself laid out in his video. Mainly it was because of the US involvement in Saudi Arabia and that region. That has nothing to do with the USSR, and everything to do with our energy policy and our being buddy-buddy with the Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia.
So really, if the US had followed a policy of isolationism and non-interventionism with regard to the middle east, 9/11 would never have happened! OBL wasn't mad at us for helping the Mujahideen with the Soviets, he was mad at us for having boots on the ground near Mecca.
So no, having limited knowledge of Russian policies did NOT result in any serious negative consequences.
Or modern algebra, judeochristian philosophy, coffee, cateract surgery, the vertical axis windmill, mercuric chloride, the first known rocket driven torpedo, or a little instrument known as the guitar.
And how many of those came from modern times? Islamic societies used to be peaceful and advanced for a little while, and then they took a left turn and shunned learning when some cleric became popular, and it's been fucked up over there ever since. And I can do without coffee, thanks; civilized people drink tea. Judeochristian philosophy isn't anything to be too proud of either, it's not much better than Islam, and regardless, that isn't a product of any Islamic societies, it's a product of Jewish society from Roman times. That's like the Swiss trying to claim credit for inventing concrete and building the aqueducts and coliseum.
As for guitars, that's just dumb. Guitars resembling modern instruments were invented in Spain, and the word itself comes from ancient Greek. Wikipedia cites a 3300 year old stone carving from Babylonia of some kind of guitar-like instrument, but again, to say that modern Islamic societies can claim credit for that is ridiculous in the extreme. It's like Mexicans claiming credit for inventing Lacrosse (a Native American game) because they have some ancestry to people that lived almost on the same continent to the people who did.
but to be fair, the Persian nation of Iran did manage to with great success hijack and safely land our most advanced stealth drone, the RQ-110, in 2011.
Yes, and that's a threat to the US mainland how? Wake me when Iran has a serious blue-water Navy and is sending their own drones into airspace anywhere near the Americas.
I don't know of many economists that would describe it that way (though, granted, there are other issues at play besides the demographic catastrophe).
Economists are frequently full of shit. Economics isn't even a real science. Compared to most other countries in the world, Japan is a very nice place to live, and it has a strong economy. Those economists will probably say it's not *as strong as it could be* if they followed their economic models and adopted policies they think it should have, but that's all supposition, nothing more. The simple fact is that Japan's economy is not bad, it's a strong industrial power, it still makes lots of great stuff, and it's a very safe, clean, and nice place to live. They do seem to have some challenges ahead with population, but a lot of that seems to come from this crazy idea that everything needs to constantly grow without end. If companies can downsize, why can't nations? As long as they can manage it properly, it should be doable.
* Uber cars are way cheaper compared to limos. Uber price range is similar to that of regular taxis.
That's irrelevant. Companies are free to price their services however they want; government regulation doesn't dictate pricing for limos.
* Limos are better (luxury) cars compared to crappy taxis or uber cars.
Bullshit, you're lying again. I've ridden in Mercedes with Uber. I'll take a Mercedes any day over some shitty American-made limo (usually a Lincoln). I've ridden in Lincolns; they're all shit.
* You have to register well ahead of time to have a limo pick you up. Taxis/Ubers, on the other hand, are on-demand and you get picked up/matched with the car closest to you almost immediately.
You have to register ahead of time with Uber too. Thanks to something called "technology", that time is now really short. You think society should be held back because of obsolete business models? It's not Uber's fault the incumbent companies were too stupid and tech-unsavvy to take advantage of smartphone apps. The business model is exactly like limos: contact the company, arrange a ride, get a quote, then get picked up and taken there.
* Limos and taxis have a very different operating model so that they don't compete too much. Uber competes directly with taxis.
It only competes with taxis because technology made it much easier to book a ride with a black car. In short, taxis became obsolete.
Learn to read; I specifically said "booking time" (time to allocate you to a car). Arrival time is a completely different metric than booking time.
It didn't take any time to book a black car in the pre-internet days either, unless they didn't have one available for that timeslot. It's not like it took them that much longer to write it down and call a driver.
Uber is playing these name games because it's operating an illegal taxi service.
Again, you're a liar. If it were illegal, they'd be getting prosecuted. They're not, because they operate under the rules for black cars. They can't be banned without also banning black cars. It's not their fault the local governments are so backwards.
Japan seems to get along just fine with an advanced, industrialized economy without resorting to large-scale immigration. You can argue that it'll bite them in the ass in 50 years or so, but that hasn't happened yet.
And honestly, the way you pitch it, it sounds like exploitation. How exactly is immigration helping the places these people come from, and the people still stuck there? If anything, it seems to make them worse off.
Please explain how poor people are prevented from voting and rich people who are non-residents can vote in local elections. That goes counter to every election system I've ever heard of.
No, it isn't a taximeter. It's a black car: you get an estimate beforehand. Have you ever even used a black car before Uber? All they did was take that and replace the telephone call + radio dispatch with a smartphone app. Why don't I see any of you morons screaming for limos to be regulated like taxis???
But Uber is like a taxi, since the average wait time needed to book a cab is around 5 minutes, same as a taxi
Now you're proving yourself to be a complete liar. The last time I booked a cab, it took them 50 minutes to arrive; it was so slow I called two competing services; one cab was coming down the street just as I was pulling away in the other. An Uber was able to arrive in less than 10 minutes, after I started using that.
It's probably because the Narnia stories were overtly Christian allegories, plus they had those annoying kids as the protagonists. LotR was written by a devout Catholic and had some Christian influence and allegory as well (like Gandalf being resurrected), but it was much more subtle and not obviously written to push Christianity on people.
And how exactly did having little contact with the Russians hurt the American economy? The main problem was that there was a Cold War, and the two powers were roughly equal technologically (note "roughly"), and both interested in geopolitical dominance, so this naturally created a lot of tension and possibility for war. However, the American economy was also doing quite well at this time, and suffering horribly because of its lack of access to Russian immigrants (or technology; the Russians in fact copied a lot of American tech).
Middle eastern nations are not like Russia/USSR. They're technologically backwards and really have nothing of value to offer except for oil. Their cultures are basically worthless and stuck in the bronze age. Militarily they are no threat whatsoever; they don't even have ships to cross the Atlantic. If we weren't so interested in their oil, we'd have nothing to lose by simply practicing a policy of isolation and containment with them.
Recruiting tools? "Waah! I can't emigrate across the ocean to this other country, so I'm going to dedicate my life to becoming a terrorist and blowing myself up to kill as many people as possible!"
This doesn't sound right...
There's countless nations which do not accept immigrants from middle eastern nations. How many immigrants does Japan take in yearly? How many incidents of terrorism has Japan suffered from foreigners? (The only one I can think of is the Sarin gas incident, which was done by a native.)
I'm sorry, this idea that "we need to take people in from screwed-up nations and cultures or else they'll attack us" sounds just plain ridiculous.
Uber isn't a taxi service, it's a black-car service. That's how they don't run afoul of taxi laws: they aren't taxis. A taxi is a car with a taximeter which charges you based on distance traveled, stops, etc. A "black car" (basically limosine) is a car where you contact the service and arrange in advance for a ride from point A to point B, are given an estimate beforehand, and can select which driver you want to ride with and in which car. These services existed LONG before Uber came around. Uber just brought them to the internet and smartphones and made them extremely convenient.
That said, if the drivers in other services are unionized, then it is only fair for Uber's drivers to be unionized too. Uber has a great service and a good business model (drivers frequently praise the work, because it gives them freedom and flexibility they wouldn't have with a regular 9-5 job), but it does need some work as far as liability, insurance, etc. I'm really not sure if a union will help here, or if they just need direct legislation to deal with businesses like this (the "gig economy") which don't have regular 40-hour/week employees, but I do think improvements are needed.
when they know that there are cheaper workers who will do the job in other countries.
This doesn't apply to Uber. You can't get someone in India to drive you between two points in Seattle. Well, not yet at least...
As for "ample laws" protecting employees, those don't exist for "contractors" or even part-time workers. So unions still have a place in securing benefits for workers who the law has disregarded.
Its about making its populus too frightened to send their children to school, too worried to board a plane without massive security theatre, and too scared to accept immigrants
One of these is not like the others. Making the populace too frightened to send their kids to school or to board and airplane really undermines the ability of a society to function at a basic level, because education and transportation are critical to a society's continued operation as well as long-term success. Immigration (particularly from middle eastern nations) is NOT necessary for a society's survival or prosperity. You can argue that it enriches a country to some extent, or that it's a humanitarian thing that's good for humanity at large, but how is it necessary for a particular nation? It's not. And it if were, there's no reason that western nations couldn't cut off immigration of middle easterners altogether and then increase the numbers of immigrants it allows from China, India, southeast Asia, eastern Europe, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. It's not like we desperately need masses of people from the middle east for our nations to function, the way we need schools and travel.
Yeah, but then they got pulled into some stupid war with an ice queen and a bunch of animals and were expected to take up swords and shields and enter combat themselves. They would have been much better off in Australia or Canada.
BTW, am I the only one that thought the Narnia stories were dumb, and a lame attempt at a copy of Lord of the Rings but with a bunch of annoying in-your-face Christian metaphors?
Oh BS. There's a famous part of the Bible where Yahweh specifically tells the Israelites to go murder some other tribe. Evangelicals point to that verse all the time.
The problem with divorce is that it doesn't necessarily solve the underlying causes for the bad relationship. Far too often the next partner is just another copy of the first one because they have attractive qualities that are similar....
I realized then that while she wanted a permanent relationship, I could see that it wouldn't last.
You're generalizing. What if you had been a bit more hasty or immature and married this woman? It wouldn't have lasted as you say, and then you would either have stayed married and miserable, or gotten a divorce and then quite likely met someone like your current wife, since you obviously learned from the first relationship and didn't make the same mistake again.
As for the DNA thing, that was just one solution I offered; how else would you do it? In current society, a huge number of kids are not raised by their married biological parents, so you can't base laws off of that assumption and have things work out. So either default to giving the stuff to the biological kids, or to whatever kids the person acted as a parent to. Or just do what we do now: let all the surviving relatives fight over it in court. Maybe we should have a law requiring everyone to file a will with the state every 10 years, starting at age 30, so the state can avoid all the trouble of dealing with relatives fighting over inheritances.
I don't know about this actual regulation, but this is exactly why it makes more sense to go by GVWR as in cars or maximum take-off rating as aircraft are normally rated for, not actual weight. With an aircraft, you can only put so much weight in the thing before it's unsafe to take off, so that's how it's rated, so you don't need to worry about someone fat sitting in it and suddenly the aircraft needs to be rated differently.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be ridiculous. They were leaders, whether you liked them or not. They led nations (and some still do, in North Korea). To say that Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Un are/were not "leaders" is just stupid and defies the very definition. They may not have been "great" leaders, but that's an entirely subjective evaluation and a matter of opinion. Many people believe that Saddam was a far more effective leader of Iraq than its current government which can't even manage to prevent large portions of its territory from being taken over by a bunch of thugs in Toyota pickups. Hitler managed to take over most of continental Europe with his leadership, and Stalin managed to establish an empire with the USSR and turn it into a superpower. To call them not-leaders is just dumb.
Are you going to tell me now that Genghis Khan was just a "bully" and not a leader?
Apparently, to Trump, killing the people who disagree with you makes you a strong and powerful leader.
Um, it does. Why would you think it doesn't?
Saddam Hussein was a strong and powerful leader as well, and he was rather brutal to his enemies as well. Are you going to try to tell me he wasn't strong and powerful?
The Kim regime in North Korea has had strong, powerful leaders, and they certainly killed people who didn't agree with them.
Hitler and Stalin were also strong, powerful leaders, and they had lots of people killed who disagreed with them.
Honestly, to say these leaders were/are not strong and powerful is almost insane.
Fuck you, you piece of shit. You're a shill for the shitty old taxi companies. They have no fucking taximeter, so they're NOT A FUCKING TAXI SERVICE. Get it, you lying sack of shit?
Limos, on average, are much better quality cars than taxis or Uber cars and their prices are a lot higher too.
You're a moron and a liar. Uber cars are nicer than limos. What kind of fucking moron thinks a Lincoln is nicer than a Mercedes? You idiot.
The exception that proves the rule, moron.
Fuck you, asswipe. It's not the exception, it's the norm with Uber. I've ridden in lots of nice cars with Uber.
You can wave your arms to catch a taxi or wait a couple of minutes or less to have a Uber taxi come to where you're waiting.
You're a fucking moron. Outside of Manhattan, you cannot wave your arms to catch a taxi.
So stop comparing uber to limos, unless you're some kind of paid shill.
You liar. You can call for a black car and get one that day, as soon as they can get there. I've done it. You're a shill for the taxis.
According to you, companies never escape the law and are justly punished each time.
Cities have had *years* to prosecute them, and they aren't doing it.
It's a taxi service, that uses internet booking instead of manual hailing of cabs. Just admit it.
Admit that you're a shill, you piece of shit. It's a black car service. If it were a taxi service, it'd be regulated like taxis or prosecuted. Put up or shut up, dick breath.
I apologise if im not following completely, but our isolationist standoff with the USSR cost us two buildings during the terrorist attack of 9/11 and it plunged us into deep recession. How? one of our many proxy wars with the former soviet union was in Afghanistan in which we backed the Mujahadeen in their efforts to resist occupation by Soviet forces. we provided arms and advanced training, and in doing so helped create the Taliban.
That's a bunch of BS.
It did help create the Taliban, but the Taliban had little to do with 9/11, that was Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban sheltered him (or basically ignored him), but that's it.
Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 because of the exact reasons that Osama himself laid out in his video. Mainly it was because of the US involvement in Saudi Arabia and that region. That has nothing to do with the USSR, and everything to do with our energy policy and our being buddy-buddy with the Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia.
So really, if the US had followed a policy of isolationism and non-interventionism with regard to the middle east, 9/11 would never have happened! OBL wasn't mad at us for helping the Mujahideen with the Soviets, he was mad at us for having boots on the ground near Mecca.
So no, having limited knowledge of Russian policies did NOT result in any serious negative consequences.
Or modern algebra, judeochristian philosophy, coffee, cateract surgery, the vertical axis windmill, mercuric chloride, the first known rocket driven torpedo, or a little instrument known as the guitar.
And how many of those came from modern times? Islamic societies used to be peaceful and advanced for a little while, and then they took a left turn and shunned learning when some cleric became popular, and it's been fucked up over there ever since. And I can do without coffee, thanks; civilized people drink tea. Judeochristian philosophy isn't anything to be too proud of either, it's not much better than Islam, and regardless, that isn't a product of any Islamic societies, it's a product of Jewish society from Roman times. That's like the Swiss trying to claim credit for inventing concrete and building the aqueducts and coliseum.
As for guitars, that's just dumb. Guitars resembling modern instruments were invented in Spain, and the word itself comes from ancient Greek. Wikipedia cites a 3300 year old stone carving from Babylonia of some kind of guitar-like instrument, but again, to say that modern Islamic societies can claim credit for that is ridiculous in the extreme. It's like Mexicans claiming credit for inventing Lacrosse (a Native American game) because they have some ancestry to people that lived almost on the same continent to the people who did.
but to be fair, the Persian nation of Iran did manage to with great success hijack and safely land our most advanced stealth drone, the RQ-110, in 2011.
Yes, and that's a threat to the US mainland how? Wake me when Iran has a serious blue-water Navy and is sending their own drones into airspace anywhere near the Americas.
I don't know of many economists that would describe it that way (though, granted, there are other issues at play besides the demographic catastrophe).
Economists are frequently full of shit. Economics isn't even a real science. Compared to most other countries in the world, Japan is a very nice place to live, and it has a strong economy. Those economists will probably say it's not *as strong as it could be* if they followed their economic models and adopted policies they think it should have, but that's all supposition, nothing more. The simple fact is that Japan's economy is not bad, it's a strong industrial power, it still makes lots of great stuff, and it's a very safe, clean, and nice place to live. They do seem to have some challenges ahead with population, but a lot of that seems to come from this crazy idea that everything needs to constantly grow without end. If companies can downsize, why can't nations? As long as they can manage it properly, it should be doable.
* Uber cars are way cheaper compared to limos. Uber price range is similar to that of regular taxis.
That's irrelevant. Companies are free to price their services however they want; government regulation doesn't dictate pricing for limos.
* Limos are better (luxury) cars compared to crappy taxis or uber cars.
Bullshit, you're lying again. I've ridden in Mercedes with Uber. I'll take a Mercedes any day over some shitty American-made limo (usually a Lincoln). I've ridden in Lincolns; they're all shit.
* You have to register well ahead of time to have a limo pick you up. Taxis/Ubers, on the other hand, are on-demand and you get picked up/matched with the car closest to you almost immediately.
You have to register ahead of time with Uber too. Thanks to something called "technology", that time is now really short. You think society should be held back because of obsolete business models? It's not Uber's fault the incumbent companies were too stupid and tech-unsavvy to take advantage of smartphone apps. The business model is exactly like limos: contact the company, arrange a ride, get a quote, then get picked up and taken there.
* Limos and taxis have a very different operating model so that they don't compete too much. Uber competes directly with taxis.
It only competes with taxis because technology made it much easier to book a ride with a black car. In short, taxis became obsolete.
Learn to read; I specifically said "booking time" (time to allocate you to a car). Arrival time is a completely different metric than booking time.
It didn't take any time to book a black car in the pre-internet days either, unless they didn't have one available for that timeslot. It's not like it took them that much longer to write it down and call a driver.
Uber is playing these name games because it's operating an illegal taxi service.
Again, you're a liar. If it were illegal, they'd be getting prosecuted. They're not, because they operate under the rules for black cars. They can't be banned without also banning black cars. It's not their fault the local governments are so backwards.
Japan seems to get along just fine with an advanced, industrialized economy without resorting to large-scale immigration. You can argue that it'll bite them in the ass in 50 years or so, but that hasn't happened yet.
And honestly, the way you pitch it, it sounds like exploitation. How exactly is immigration helping the places these people come from, and the people still stuck there? If anything, it seems to make them worse off.
Because we're stupid, that why. Why does any group of people do stupid things?
Please explain how poor people are prevented from voting and rich people who are non-residents can vote in local elections. That goes counter to every election system I've ever heard of.
No, it isn't a taximeter. It's a black car: you get an estimate beforehand. Have you ever even used a black car before Uber? All they did was take that and replace the telephone call + radio dispatch with a smartphone app. Why don't I see any of you morons screaming for limos to be regulated like taxis???
But Uber is like a taxi, since the average wait time needed to book a cab is around 5 minutes, same as a taxi
Now you're proving yourself to be a complete liar. The last time I booked a cab, it took them 50 minutes to arrive; it was so slow I called two competing services; one cab was coming down the street just as I was pulling away in the other. An Uber was able to arrive in less than 10 minutes, after I started using that.
Thank you, that seems to summarize them pretty well.
It's probably because the Narnia stories were overtly Christian allegories, plus they had those annoying kids as the protagonists. LotR was written by a devout Catholic and had some Christian influence and allegory as well (like Gandalf being resurrected), but it was much more subtle and not obviously written to push Christianity on people.
And how exactly did having little contact with the Russians hurt the American economy? The main problem was that there was a Cold War, and the two powers were roughly equal technologically (note "roughly"), and both interested in geopolitical dominance, so this naturally created a lot of tension and possibility for war. However, the American economy was also doing quite well at this time, and suffering horribly because of its lack of access to Russian immigrants (or technology; the Russians in fact copied a lot of American tech).
Middle eastern nations are not like Russia/USSR. They're technologically backwards and really have nothing of value to offer except for oil. Their cultures are basically worthless and stuck in the bronze age. Militarily they are no threat whatsoever; they don't even have ships to cross the Atlantic. If we weren't so interested in their oil, we'd have nothing to lose by simply practicing a policy of isolation and containment with them.
Recruiting tools? "Waah! I can't emigrate across the ocean to this other country, so I'm going to dedicate my life to becoming a terrorist and blowing myself up to kill as many people as possible!"
This doesn't sound right...
There's countless nations which do not accept immigrants from middle eastern nations. How many immigrants does Japan take in yearly? How many incidents of terrorism has Japan suffered from foreigners? (The only one I can think of is the Sarin gas incident, which was done by a native.)
I'm sorry, this idea that "we need to take people in from screwed-up nations and cultures or else they'll attack us" sounds just plain ridiculous.
No, it's not, fuckwad. It has no taximeter, it's the same as a limosine.
Fuck off.
Then try SoylentNews.
They need to just throw in the towel and shut down. It's absolutely pathetic.
Heck, if my workplace didn't block Reddit, I probably wouldn't bother much with this place.
Another good place is Hacker News at https://news.ycombinator.com/n.... Unfortunately my workplace connection usually won't let me go there either.
Uber isn't a taxi service, it's a black-car service. That's how they don't run afoul of taxi laws: they aren't taxis. A taxi is a car with a taximeter which charges you based on distance traveled, stops, etc. A "black car" (basically limosine) is a car where you contact the service and arrange in advance for a ride from point A to point B, are given an estimate beforehand, and can select which driver you want to ride with and in which car. These services existed LONG before Uber came around. Uber just brought them to the internet and smartphones and made them extremely convenient.
That said, if the drivers in other services are unionized, then it is only fair for Uber's drivers to be unionized too. Uber has a great service and a good business model (drivers frequently praise the work, because it gives them freedom and flexibility they wouldn't have with a regular 9-5 job), but it does need some work as far as liability, insurance, etc. I'm really not sure if a union will help here, or if they just need direct legislation to deal with businesses like this (the "gig economy") which don't have regular 40-hour/week employees, but I do think improvements are needed.
when they know that there are cheaper workers who will do the job in other countries.
This doesn't apply to Uber. You can't get someone in India to drive you between two points in Seattle. Well, not yet at least...
As for "ample laws" protecting employees, those don't exist for "contractors" or even part-time workers. So unions still have a place in securing benefits for workers who the law has disregarded.
Its about making its populus too frightened to send their children to school, too worried to board a plane without massive security theatre, and too scared to accept immigrants
One of these is not like the others. Making the populace too frightened to send their kids to school or to board and airplane really undermines the ability of a society to function at a basic level, because education and transportation are critical to a society's continued operation as well as long-term success. Immigration (particularly from middle eastern nations) is NOT necessary for a society's survival or prosperity. You can argue that it enriches a country to some extent, or that it's a humanitarian thing that's good for humanity at large, but how is it necessary for a particular nation? It's not. And it if were, there's no reason that western nations couldn't cut off immigration of middle easterners altogether and then increase the numbers of immigrants it allows from China, India, southeast Asia, eastern Europe, South America, and sub-Saharan Africa. It's not like we desperately need masses of people from the middle east for our nations to function, the way we need schools and travel.
Yeah, but then they got pulled into some stupid war with an ice queen and a bunch of animals and were expected to take up swords and shields and enter combat themselves. They would have been much better off in Australia or Canada.
BTW, am I the only one that thought the Narnia stories were dumb, and a lame attempt at a copy of Lord of the Rings but with a bunch of annoying in-your-face Christian metaphors?
Oh BS. There's a famous part of the Bible where Yahweh specifically tells the Israelites to go murder some other tribe. Evangelicals point to that verse all the time.
The problem with divorce is that it doesn't necessarily solve the underlying causes for the bad relationship. Far too often the next partner is just another copy of the first one because they have attractive qualities that are similar. ...
I realized then that while she wanted a permanent relationship, I could see that it wouldn't last.
You're generalizing. What if you had been a bit more hasty or immature and married this woman? It wouldn't have lasted as you say, and then you would either have stayed married and miserable, or gotten a divorce and then quite likely met someone like your current wife, since you obviously learned from the first relationship and didn't make the same mistake again.
As for the DNA thing, that was just one solution I offered; how else would you do it? In current society, a huge number of kids are not raised by their married biological parents, so you can't base laws off of that assumption and have things work out. So either default to giving the stuff to the biological kids, or to whatever kids the person acted as a parent to. Or just do what we do now: let all the surviving relatives fight over it in court. Maybe we should have a law requiring everyone to file a will with the state every 10 years, starting at age 30, so the state can avoid all the trouble of dealing with relatives fighting over inheritances.
I don't know about this actual regulation, but this is exactly why it makes more sense to go by GVWR as in cars or maximum take-off rating as aircraft are normally rated for, not actual weight. With an aircraft, you can only put so much weight in the thing before it's unsafe to take off, so that's how it's rated, so you don't need to worry about someone fat sitting in it and suddenly the aircraft needs to be rated differently.