I left a job, where I sometimes arrived 5-10 minutes late. But many days could find myself stuck till late evening finishing up a rush order.
If you want employees to be perfectly timely at 9-5, then it should be reciprocated. 5pm you're on your own boss. If you want to invade that personal time, then you need to be understsanding if they're a few minutes late. (The exception is life critical jobs, nurses, etc. But for most of us, that's not the case.)
The truth is, because of economic recessions and big corporate lobbying, there is an economic environment which mostly favors the employers. The fact that you are in a more powerful position, doesn't make you right in your demands. It simply means you are a tyrant.
A moral employer would say, hey, I respect you. Either by saying I want you here 9-5, and you are not obligated to be here outside of those times. OR we understand life, and the world are crazy. We expect you to normally be in by 9am. Or at least within a few minutes. But we're flexible. Likewise, there will be days when we really need your help beyond 5pm.
The real issue is that most of the time that you give your 2 weeks notice. The company asks you to leave that day. And you're out 2 weeks of pay. Youch!!!
But if they let you go or fire you, then you are gone that day.
The issue is one of "security", and it's kind of the sad state of this world where there is little trust or integrity on either side. I do feel that the law should state, that if an employee gives his or her employer two weeks notice. And the company asks them to leave that day, that they should be required to pay the employee for those two weeks.
Remember, the government doesn't like ANY bullets that aren't made out of lead (except for certain frangible rounds which are not good for hunting, just killing, because they powder).
It's not just the cost of other metals, some might even be cheaper. But it's a matter that lead is basically the 2nd softest metal, (after mercury) and the softest malleable metal..GOV considers most any other metal to be armor penetrating.
So what's a.300 Winchester hunting rifle with a scope, when you replace the lead bullets with anything else, suddenly becomes a scoped sniper rifle with armor piercing bullets.
***
Can't win....
And for all you dumb fucks who say simply get rid of or ban guns.
Really, you've got the NSA reading these threads, and your email, and listening to your phone calls. You've got cameras on corners and police cruisers recording all your movements.
If there was ever a time we needed our guns, it sure looks like it could be soon. Forget an AWB, we need to be considering whether we should lift the 1986 ban on automatic weapons.:-P
It doesn't NEED to be done in a production device to be prior art. In fact zero inventions appear in a production device. They ALL appear in prototypes or limited use devices.
None of them did it, because a) the multi-touch haptic functionality had just came down in price b) Apple's #1 achievement was in selling an $800 phone. The market did NOT think that was sustainable.
Not until you can tell me why about 200 years ago we swapped U's with V's. And changed "I loue yov" to "I love you". The truth is, grammar is far far over-rated. Especially contradictory grammar.
As my grammar still conveyed the issue, even when I made a hapless mistake (likely due to finger memory combined with carelessness). The result of my failure in grammar, is not an excuse to dismiss the arguments made.
*** Wur eye to rite kompleatlee rong and yu culd stil rede it. Than yu ar oblegated to konsider ze wurds.
No, I'm not only coming to these conclusions now. It's just that the behaviors and actions of my country is becoming egregious enough that I am able to slowly convince others of the truth.
Really, cause the Nazis had an immense amount of popular support. I wonder if Jews, Poles, and French would agree with you that the Nazis weren't totalitarian?
Most Californians were against GMOs and supported labelling. Polls showed 70% support. Ballot measure failed. How do you have 70%+ support and the measure fail - FRAUD.
*** And many have voted but, what good is it when you are given a choice of two candidates, and both are for what you're against. You start picking the most minor minutia to differentiate the two (pro-life, race, good looks, etc)
Didn't need to, the system controls the election process. This is why, by the time the last two presidential elections came about. The primaries to select candidates were determined by the time most of the country got to vote. Sure we got a choice of Obama vs McCain/Romney. But that is akin to the Soviets getting to vote for the two candidates they were given in the Communist party.
"When did the "police state" shut down shutdown the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"
When it monitored and harassed the Associated Press. When it terrorized whistle blowers. When it made it uncomfortable to speak out about real issues about our government.
And for the most part, it doesn't need to because nearly ALL of our media is owned and controlled by a handful of men. Any mainstream reporter going against the grain is simply let go and finds that no major outlet will hire them.
"but actually shut down the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?" I do not believe the Nazis nor the Soviets ever did this. They simply maintained influence over. And if you think that's not the case. You're not reading enough.
"When did the "police state" stop you from traveling without an internal passport?" When they made me license my vehicle, and when they monitored it's travels. No, they don't need to stop me. They have an automated system that allows them to accomplish the same thing sans the need to stop. It's called TECHNOLOGY.
"When did the "police state" dismantle all of the political opposition parties and jail the leadership?"
They haven't needed to jail the leadership. Because the laws are written to make it almost impossible for political opposition parties to gain a foothold in the elective process. When they do, as in the case of Ron Paul winning massive amounts of delegates. The system simply breaks the laws. Knowing it is too costly, and ineffective to pursue a challenge through the court system.
"When did the "police state" suspend habeas corpus?"
What need is there to suspend it? When you have so many laws and willing courts to convict people on. One can argue it was suspended when people are thrown in jail for growing and trading orchids. And trumped up charges. Or when ANYONE who objects is automatically charged and sentenced to resisting arrest.
Police states do not necessarily absolve the judicial process.
"When did the "police state" start punishing people for wanting to leave the country?"
See the ex-patriate acts and other laws that restrict the removal of wealth from America. And there are many more being proposed.
Well, let's look at Iran and elsewhere. Where mosques are part of the police state. The existence of, or persecution against, churches is not a criteria for a police state.
But there is talk of removing tax exempt status.
"When did the "police state" start imprisoning people for criticizing the president? When did the "police state" start having people fired from their jobs for not supporting the government?"
What jobs?
"When did the "police state" stop using jury trials?"
Is Bradley Manning receiving a jury trial? Do we even know? It's secret....
"When did the "police state" start banning books?" I think you assume that for a police state to exist, all requirements of past police states must exist.
But how about forbidding the U.S. military forces from viewing the UK News site th
And just for those who think they'd never support that. What if it merely meant killing 15 million right-wing evangelicals who many on Slashdot would exclaim are the world's problem. How many would accept that for a PAX prosperity?
How many had a second thought of, yes, we should get rid of them, but then hesitated because of the thought of killing. Realize, you'd probably only need a good convincing. Maybe a few bad deeds on their part and a few good speeches by a charismatic leader.
Yes, yes, I fear gravely that you are right. "Ordinary Men", everyone should read the book. Remember, the Nazi's were not monstrous aliens. They were ordinary men who did extraordinarily heinous deeds.
And yes, I fear that many will be content so long as their general well being is not infringed.
***
Scariest question, if I could murder 5% of America but bring in a PAX prosperity, where the economy was spectacular. $150,000 salaries, no inflation, on 32 hour work weeks.
How many Americans would accept such....(and that's rhetorical, I am frightened to even think about answers).
Let me clarify, most Americans in their day to day dealings do not do anything that would stir up authorities. In other words, we are not (generally) criminals. Most of us abide by moderate levels of regulations.
That said, we are also indoctrinated from K-12 to sit at a desk and do as we're told. Is it really any surprise that as adults, most Americans sit at a desk and do as they're told?
There is in fact a growing number who are coming to similar conclusions. That something is seriously wrong with the path America is on, and the behaviors of our government.
But even still, a great many in America feel "Well if I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?"
But
***
I have friends and relatives who have lived as well. And you know what most of them say, America is far better than Russia, and other states. And no, we're no N. Korea for sure.
But those who live through, exclaim they're seeing it again. Those who have left, exclaim that we're starting to do many of the same things.
"We actually understand what is going on, know our government is misbehaving and many of us are working actively to bring it back into line."
Yes, I and you, and probably 20% of Americans fall into this category. And hopefully it will continue to grow.
***
But what are you arguments for the fact that we're NOT living in a police state? versus that we're just subservient to said state?
One also has to remember that a just because something isn't to the fullest extreme, does not negate it from being what it is.
A Big Mac may not be as unhealthy as a giant Fat Burger. But it's still unhealthy.
We may not be a police state on par with Russia, N. Korea, etc. But how does one argue we are not a police state when we are under 100% monitoring, our police have the authority act, detain, seize property on a whim.
Don't drink that soda, no oreos for you, stop donating food to the homeless, you will buy auto and health insurance,....
?????
How many more !@#$% areas of control are necessary?
***
Sure, I would never call us the worst totalitarian government. We are still mostly free to travel. But even then, you need your papers. Ever try driving a car without registration, without inspection, or without insurance?
Well, our police have APCs and M16's now. So I think we're better armed than Mozambique. We just don't flex our muscles as much.
Furthermore, consider that in Mozambique, there are petty warlords, drug lords, cartels and tribal warfare. So the police are likely to be engaged by heavily armed criminals.
That's not really the case in the U.S., so the disparity of force is orders of magnitude more excessive.
In 2008/2012, there were close to 40 candidates initially running President.
I live in Pennsylvania, by the time the primaries arrived Pennsylvanians had a choice of voting for:
2008 - Clinton/Obama on the Democrat ticket, or McCain on the Republican ticket - where were the other dozens of choices?
2012 - Obama on the Democrat ticket, or Romney on the Republican ticket - where were the other dozens of choices?
*** My point, we only THINK we had an election. What we were given was a choice to vote for one of two candidates selected by the American politburo. These party laws, ballot laws, 2,000 signatures for a Democrat or Republican to be on a ballot, 20,000 for a 3rd party.
They're designed to allow us to feel like we have an influence via our vote. But they hide the illusion of reality, that we're living in a dream world NEO. We don't have a vote.
--
Heck, Ron Paul followers elected (legally) numerous convention "delegates". But then the Republican party refused to give them entrance credentials, even though they had legally been elected.
Slashdot Mirror
I left a job, where I sometimes arrived 5-10 minutes late. But many days could find myself stuck till late evening finishing up a rush order.
If you want employees to be perfectly timely at 9-5, then it should be reciprocated. 5pm you're on your own boss. If you want to invade that personal time, then you need to be understsanding if they're a few minutes late. (The exception is life critical jobs, nurses, etc. But for most of us, that's not the case.)
The truth is, because of economic recessions and big corporate lobbying, there is an economic environment which mostly favors the employers. The fact that you are in a more powerful position, doesn't make you right in your demands. It simply means you are a tyrant.
A moral employer would say, hey, I respect you. Either by saying I want you here 9-5, and you are not obligated to be here outside of those times. OR we understand life, and the world are crazy. We expect you to normally be in by 9am. Or at least within a few minutes. But we're flexible. Likewise, there will be days when we really need your help beyond 5pm.
And we can all be mutually respectful.
The real issue is that most of the time that you give your 2 weeks notice. The company asks you to leave that day. And you're out 2 weeks of pay. Youch!!!
But if they let you go or fire you, then you are gone that day.
The issue is one of "security", and it's kind of the sad state of this world where there is little trust or integrity on either side. I do feel that the law should state, that if an employee gives his or her employer two weeks notice. And the company asks them to leave that day, that they should be required to pay the employee for those two weeks.
Remember, the government doesn't like ANY bullets that aren't made out of lead (except for certain frangible rounds which are not good for hunting, just killing, because they powder).
It's not just the cost of other metals, some might even be cheaper. But it's a matter that lead is basically the 2nd softest metal, (after mercury) and the softest malleable metal. .GOV considers most any other metal to be armor penetrating.
So what's a .300 Winchester hunting rifle with a scope, when you replace the lead bullets with anything else, suddenly becomes a scoped sniper rifle with armor piercing bullets.
***
Can't win....
And for all you dumb fucks who say simply get rid of or ban guns.
Really, you've got the NSA reading these threads, and your email, and listening to your phone calls. You've got cameras on corners and police cruisers recording all your movements.
If there was ever a time we needed our guns, it sure looks like it could be soon. Forget an AWB, we need to be considering whether we should lift the 1986 ban on automatic weapons. :-P
It doesn't NEED to be done in a production device to be prior art. In fact zero inventions appear in a production device. They ALL appear in prototypes or limited use devices.
None of them did it, because a) the multi-touch haptic functionality had just came down in price b) Apple's #1 achievement was in selling an $800 phone. The market did NOT think that was sustainable.
Okay, let me fix...
"Killed millions of their own citizens"....sorry that was implied. I've now specified it for those unable to recognize the implication.
No...
Not until you can tell me why about 200 years ago we swapped U's with V's. And changed "I loue yov" to "I love you". The truth is, grammar is far far over-rated. Especially contradictory grammar.
As my grammar still conveyed the issue, even when I made a hapless mistake (likely due to finger memory combined with carelessness). The result of my failure in grammar, is not an excuse to dismiss the arguments made.
***
Wur eye to rite kompleatlee rong and yu culd stil rede it. Than yu ar oblegated to konsider ze wurds.
That's because the NSA spy program is not focused on foreign terrorists, but is focused on domestic monitoring and control
No, I'm not only coming to these conclusions now. It's just that the behaviors and actions of my country is becoming egregious enough that I am able to slowly convince others of the truth.
And they're expanding it to trains stations, bus depots....
Heck, I've been stopped for simply taking a picture. Had to show my papers.
So don't tell me its not a god-damned police state, if you're such a blithering moron to not realize it.
Really, cause the Nazis had an immense amount of popular support. I wonder if Jews, Poles, and French would agree with you that the Nazis weren't totalitarian?
No it's an outgrowth of a failed prohibition much akin to the 1920's prohibition on alcohol.
There are hundreds and hundreds of documented incidents.
Most Californians were against GMOs and supported labelling. Polls showed 70% support. Ballot measure failed. How do you have 70%+ support and the measure fail - FRAUD.
***
And many have voted but, what good is it when you are given a choice of two candidates, and both are for what you're against. You start picking the most minor minutia to differentiate the two (pro-life, race, good looks, etc)
"When did the "police state" cancel the vote?"
Didn't need to, the system controls the election process. This is why, by the time the last two presidential elections came about. The primaries to select candidates were determined by the time most of the country got to vote. Sure we got a choice of Obama vs McCain/Romney. But that is akin to the Soviets getting to vote for the two candidates they were given in the Communist party.
"When did the "police state" shut down shutdown the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"
When it monitored and harassed the Associated Press. When it terrorized whistle blowers. When it made it uncomfortable to speak out about real issues about our government.
And for the most part, it doesn't need to because nearly ALL of our media is owned and controlled by a handful of men. Any mainstream reporter going against the grain is simply let go and finds that no major outlet will hire them.
"but actually shut down the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"
I do not believe the Nazis nor the Soviets ever did this. They simply maintained influence over. And if you think that's not the case. You're not reading enough.
"When did the "police state" stop you from traveling without an internal passport?"
When they made me license my vehicle, and when they monitored it's travels. No, they don't need to stop me. They have an automated system that allows them to accomplish the same thing sans the need to stop. It's called TECHNOLOGY.
"When did the "police state" dismantle all of the political opposition parties and jail the leadership?"
They haven't needed to jail the leadership. Because the laws are written to make it almost impossible for political opposition parties to gain a foothold in the elective process. When they do, as in the case of Ron Paul winning massive amounts of delegates. The system simply breaks the laws. Knowing it is too costly, and ineffective to pursue a challenge through the court system.
"When did the "police state" suspend habeas corpus?"
What need is there to suspend it? When you have so many laws and willing courts to convict people on. One can argue it was suspended when people are thrown in jail for growing and trading orchids. And trumped up charges. Or when ANYONE who objects is automatically charged and sentenced to resisting arrest.
Police states do not necessarily absolve the judicial process.
"When did the "police state" start punishing people for wanting to leave the country?"
See the ex-patriate acts and other laws that restrict the removal of wealth from America. And there are many more being proposed.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/wealthy-americans-queue-to-give-up-passports-in-swiss-capital.html
"When did the "police state" close the churches?"
Well, let's look at Iran and elsewhere. Where mosques are part of the police state. The existence of, or persecution against, churches is not a criteria for a police state.
But there is talk of removing tax exempt status.
"When did the "police state" start imprisoning people for criticizing the president? When did the "police state" start having people fired from their jobs for not supporting the government?"
What jobs?
"When did the "police state" stop using jury trials?"
Is Bradley Manning receiving a jury trial? Do we even know? It's secret....
"When did the "police state" start banning books?"
I think you assume that for a police state to exist, all requirements of past police states must exist.
But how about forbidding the U.S. military forces from viewing the UK News site th
And what do you do, when both parties are in cohoots and screwing together?
And just for those who think they'd never support that. What if it merely meant killing 15 million right-wing evangelicals who many on Slashdot would exclaim are the world's problem. How many would accept that for a PAX prosperity?
How many had a second thought of, yes, we should get rid of them, but then hesitated because of the thought of killing. Realize, you'd probably only need a good convincing. Maybe a few bad deeds on their part and a few good speeches by a charismatic leader.
We are sadly fragile in our morals.
Damn you girlintraining,
Yes, yes, I fear gravely that you are right. "Ordinary Men", everyone should read the book. Remember, the Nazi's were not monstrous aliens. They were ordinary men who did extraordinarily heinous deeds.
And yes, I fear that many will be content so long as their general well being is not infringed.
***
Scariest question, if I could murder 5% of America but bring in a PAX prosperity, where the economy was spectacular. $150,000 salaries, no inflation, on 32 hour work weeks.
How many Americans would accept such....(and that's rhetorical, I am frightened to even think about answers).
Link please, I am not sure to what you are referencing in West, Texas?
Would be curious to know...
Let me clarify, most Americans in their day to day dealings do not do anything that would stir up authorities. In other words, we are not (generally) criminals. Most of us abide by moderate levels of regulations.
That said, we are also indoctrinated from K-12 to sit at a desk and do as we're told. Is it really any surprise that as adults, most Americans sit at a desk and do as they're told?
You are absolute correct....
And I know that. Why I typed it with a possessive, even I am not sure. I think fingers just add it in out of habit.
Thank you.
"most Americans", I didn't say all...
There is in fact a growing number who are coming to similar conclusions. That something is seriously wrong with the path America is on, and the behaviors of our government.
But even still, a great many in America feel "Well if I'm not doing anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?"
But
***
I have friends and relatives who have lived as well. And you know what most of them say, America is far better than Russia, and other states. And no, we're no N. Korea for sure.
But those who live through, exclaim they're seeing it again. Those who have left, exclaim that we're starting to do many of the same things.
"We actually understand what is going on, know our government is misbehaving and many of us are working actively to bring it back into line."
Yes, I and you, and probably 20% of Americans fall into this category. And hopefully it will continue to grow.
***
But what are you arguments for the fact that we're NOT living in a police state? versus that we're just subservient to said state?
One also has to remember that a just because something isn't to the fullest extreme, does not negate it from being what it is.
A Big Mac may not be as unhealthy as a giant Fat Burger. But it's still unhealthy.
We may not be a police state on par with Russia, N. Korea, etc. But how does one argue we are not a police state when we are under 100% monitoring, our police have the authority act, detain, seize property on a whim.
???
Would you care to elaborate as to why you think this?
You claim the argument is wrong, but give no counterpoint. I am open to discussion. Persuade me...
Don't drink that soda, no oreos for you, stop donating food to the homeless, you will buy auto and health insurance,....
?????
How many more !@#$% areas of control are necessary?
***
Sure, I would never call us the worst totalitarian government. We are still mostly free to travel. But even then, you need your papers. Ever try driving a car without registration, without inspection, or without insurance?
Well, our police have APCs and M16's now. So I think we're better armed than Mozambique. We just don't flex our muscles as much.
Furthermore, consider that in Mozambique, there are petty warlords, drug lords, cartels and tribal warfare. So the police are likely to be engaged by heavily armed criminals.
That's not really the case in the U.S., so the disparity of force is orders of magnitude more excessive.
In 2008/2012, there were close to 40 candidates initially running President.
I live in Pennsylvania, by the time the primaries arrived Pennsylvanians had a choice of voting for:
2008 - Clinton/Obama on the Democrat ticket, or McCain on the Republican ticket - where were the other dozens of choices?
2012 - Obama on the Democrat ticket, or Romney on the Republican ticket - where were the other dozens of choices?
***
My point, we only THINK we had an election. What we were given was a choice to vote for one of two candidates selected by the American politburo. These party laws, ballot laws, 2,000 signatures for a Democrat or Republican to be on a ballot, 20,000 for a 3rd party.
They're designed to allow us to feel like we have an influence via our vote. But they hide the illusion of reality, that we're living in a dream world NEO. We don't have a vote.
--
Heck, Ron Paul followers elected (legally) numerous convention "delegates". But then the Republican party refused to give them entrance credentials, even though they had legally been elected.
This is the mask that hides the truth.