I come from a fairly storied background, with family violence and the whole nine yards. The exact same situation?
No. Nobody else has ever been in that exact same situation.
Therefore, nobody has any idea what they'd do.
Right?
Of course I think you can have an idea of what you would do but I don't think you can be certain, no. Even if you are certain, that doesn't mean that you would actually do it. You'll never know unless it actually happens.
On top of that, not everyone has it in them to kill another person - especially if they think / hope that they won't have to...that warning shots would be sufficient to say "I'm serious back the fuck off".
Actually as a PC repair guy who often does this very thing I say they should throw the contractor in jail, he is making us all look bad.
I've done plenty of work for the city in the past and they know any donations they give to me will be wiped clean so they have no problem handing me desktops and laptops that are being replaced. Is there any records on them? probably but I wouldn't know as the first thing they get is a boot 'n nuke from me, the ONLY thing I don't wipe is the factory restore partition if it has one, everything else? Wiped before I ever mess with the system.
So I'm all for throwing this asshole in jail because its jerks like this that end up causing systems to be disposed of via shotgun. In a dead economy there is plenty of folks hurting out there and these off-lease systems can be used to make sure anybody can have a PC, hell thanks to donations from the city I have a complete desktop system for $50 at the shop. Sure its not the fastest thing in the world but it surfs, burns DVDs, and when somebody needs a PC so their kid can look up info for school reports and they can look for a second job? A system like that can really make a difference. This is why I fricking HATE when assholes like this do dumb shit like just throwing it on eBay, he could have boot n' nuked and been done in no time, throw the lazy ass in jail.
And if you work in a position that has getting rid of older systems as part of your duties? Don't dispose of via shotgun, talk to the local shop guys, talk to the local churches, there is usually a guy like me that is happy to refurb 'em for the poor folks and unlike this douchebag we're happy to do secure wiping on anything you hand us. There is nothing like the feeling of making a difference, just last week I donated a couple of systems to one of the local churches so they could expand their computer classes, they do a lot of work with abused women and teaching them basic computer and office skills helps them get a job and not be dependent on some wife beating scumbag. I wouldn't have been able to hand those systems over if they hadn't been donated to me, so ask around, those old P4s and Athlons may be junkers to you but it could make a difference to somebody else.
It depends. It's easy enough to blame the contractor but there are factors that have to be taken into account.
Is there a written security policy that states that the drives have to be wiped (and with what method or methods)? Was the contractor presented with said policy and asked to sign each page to indicate that they've seen it? Was it written into the contract with the contractor that they read and will follow said security policy?
Yes the contractor (if there was one - I didn't read TFA) fucked up but they may not have been the only ones.
GZ: "Hi, neighborhood watch. Do you live around here?" TM: "I'm going to attack you now." GZ: "Holy shit, my face is getting pummeled and my head is being slammed into the concrete. I should defend myself before I die."
Just saying, that is a possible way that questioning a high school student could turn into legitimate self defense.
An alternate: GZ: "You don't belong here leave or I will make you leave" TM: "Fuck off" GZ (Grabs TM): "Grumble Mumble!!" TM (Physically defends himself and turns the table on GZ): "Mumble Grumble!!" GZ: "Holy shit, my face is getting pummeled and my head is being slammed into the concrete. I should defend myself before I die."
I'm not saying it happened this way. There's no way to know what happened.
Stupid mistake #1. Zimmerman got out of the car. If Zimmerman had stayed in the car, then either Martin would have kept walking home, or if he had chosen to attack, would have had to kick in a window to get to Zimmerman, and there would have been no doubt about Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
Stupid mistake #2. Martin did not just keep walking. If Martin had kept on walking regardless of Zimmerman getting out of the car, Martin would have either gotten home safely, or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt.
What is clear is that at some point, for some reason, Martin turned and attacked. Was he a 17 year old gangster wannabe looking for some street cred, and beating up "a creepy cracker" seemed like a way to get it? Did Zimmerman start yelling out racial slurs, goading Martin beyond the point of reason? We don't know, and there was no evidence either way that could convince the jury. So they were left with reasonable doubt. And if you have reasonable doubt, you are required to acquit.
Depends on how aggressive Zimmerman was when he got out of the car.
If Zimmerman was overly aggressive and threatening, which given his record seems quite possible, Martin may not have found it possible to 'just keep walking'.
Did Martin turn and attack or did Zimmerman grab him and Martin was defending himself and the whole thing escalated?
I agree with you that we will never know the truth of it and that the jury probably had a reasonable doubt.
I've always believed that one should not ever brandish a firearm in a confrontation unless they're prepared to use it to cause harm.
Warning shot? No. If you think you can fire a warning shot and "scare someone away," then you've still got other less-lethal methods of handling the situation. (And if nothing else, it wastes ammunition.)
Drawing a firearm is the very last resort. And once you've drawn that weapon weapon, always fire at the person you are in confrontation with (with intent to, you know, actually hit them) -- not in random directions.
(The reason: If you don't intend to shoot the person, don't be waving a gun around. It isn't safe. A gun is not a threat, nor is it a scare tactic. It's a goddamn killing machine. Either use it properly and swiftly, or leave it alone.)
And if the person you're terrified of is the father of your daughter...?
Things are not always so black and white as to make a situation as clear cut as you make it out to be.
It's always so easy to say "I would do this" but unless you've been in the exact same situation you really haven't the slightest idea what you would do.
Civilians don't get to do "warning" shots. The deal with the use of deadly force is that it either is or is not justified. There isn't a situation where it is justified to "just try and scare them" with a gun.
In the case of something like this, the justification would be that you feared for your life. In most places that allow lethal force for self defense, that is a valid reason. The thing is, just firing a warning shots could show that you really DIDN'T have an imminent fear for your life. You weren't so afraid you felt the need to shoot your attacker, just "warn" them. Thus you weren't really in fear for your life, so no justification.
I am not aware of jurisdictions that allow you to use guns to just try and scare people for various reasons. You can use them to defend yourself and sometimes others, but only in grave cases. If the case isn't grave enough for that, then you aren't justified in using it in any way.
Basically as a civilian in a self defense situation don't draw your gun unless to shoot and don't shoot except to kill. If the situation isn't serious enough to warrant that, then a gun isn't the answer.
Disagree.
Firing warning shots could show that you're a decent person who wanted to warn the 'bad guy' off without killing them if possible because, after all, they are still the father of your child.
Warning shots are probably enough to scare off most 'bad guys' that aren't on PCP or something.
A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
Total dead: 0.
20 years for trying to defend herself against against someone she already had a protective order against.
She probably should have waited until after he gave her a bloody nose and then killed him with a single shot to the heart at close range.
No one to contest her story of self defense then - and it worked for Zimmerman (right or wrong - I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty as I haven't the slightest idea).
No, but, I didn't want any of the previous nutcases we've had either. What's the difference?
The difference is of magnitude. When presented with multiple options it's still better to take the least bad of those options.
I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
So you never act in your own interests?
Of course I do - but I also am sure to give something of what I have to those who have much less. It doesn't change my life significantly but it does change theirs. It doesn't really take a lot to make a big difference in the life of a family in a third world country (I travel a lot).
I don't see how it is evil to raise money for the campaign of a politician that helps you. I see how it *can* be evil, if the thing he/she is helping you to do is evil, or if the politician is evil.
I don't think being a climate change denier makes a person evil. It probably makes them stupid. But in all honesty, how many politicians are *not* stupid? What percentage of politicians believe in God? This makes 99+% of politicians in America stupid, or at liars pretending to be stupid, or both.
In a perfect world I would say that we should consider any kind of campaign contributions from anyone to be evil, but what's the alternative?
Force people to donate to all campaigns (i.e. public funding)?
Only allow donations from certain people (e.g. non evil people without agendas)?
If we are going to step outside the world we live in when we start labeling people evil, I am going to say that anyone who doesn't donate 100% of their profits to charity is evil, and therefore 99.9999% of Americans are evil, including google. Every dinner out, or new phone is a wasted opportunity to save a child or children in Africa. Every item of luxury that you enjoy is at the expense of someone else's necessities going unfulfilled.
We can either go through life constantly plagued with guilt even if we do our best, because it's never good enough, or we can just do something better than nothing and something less than everything, and try to enjoy ourselves before we die, and simply refuse to accept 100% complete responsibility for every bad thing that happens to someone else.
I kinda sucks, but I would rather enjoy my life.
Would you want this nutcase as president?
It's evil to put someone in power to make money over the health and welfare of the people living in your country (or elsewhere for that matter).
As for enjoying your life...by all means, do so.
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."
-- Dante
P.S. I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know. And the title is just trolling for True Believers who think that "Global Warming" is a single monolithic issue, with exactly one meaning and with exactly two sides ("Evangelist" and "Denier"), with no nuance or discussion possible. (As evidence, watch the flood of comments that will follow labeling me a "denier" because I used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.)
It's news because while we can assume that companies (and politicians) are shit by default, many of us would not have the details and be able to discuss it intelligently if we didn't read about it here or elsewhere.
I don't know but... isn't THAT some kind of treason or betrayal of your fellow countrymen or something?
It's only treason if it's against the government.
It's probably safe to assume that there is some bilateral agreement in place between Australia and the US for information sharing (cooperative spying on the civilian populations of both countries).
Legislation is needed to close the loophole apparently being used by many governments that while they are not allowed to spy on their own citizens, allied powers are not stopped from doing so.
There is supply in the US. Companies prefer cheap imported labor - young, family-less, unlikely to complain labor instead of more expensive domestic labor.
Shitcan the H1B program and not only will the engineers we already have be able to find work but we'll have more engineers in the future to fill the need that will exist.
Assuming engineering work isn't all outsourced overseas, of course.
There are more than 0 affairs that occur in those states, and they do, in fact, kill the women involved.
FTFY
Not exclusively, and the current application of the law was not it's original intent.
Having a woman killed because she was raped us just as un-muslim as it was un-christian for Henry VIII (Or Bill Clinton?) to do what he did.
Cultural and religious standards are only one aspect of the problem, systemic corruption is another.
It's barbaric regardless of the sex of the persons involved.
On top of that, I'd be interested in seeing any actual references you have that show men being punished as the women are because so far I have ONLY seen articles about women being whipped or killed.
Companies shouldn't have to worry about providing insurance to workers, regardless. They should be able to focus on the cost of running their business with static expenses. Countries like Denmark has some of the highest individual entrepreneurship rates in the world. Why? Because the government takes care of providing health care to everyone, as well as all schooling through college. Obviously these are all funded through higher tax rates, but it leaves a lot of unknown headaches from businesses and manages to provide everyone an opportunity to succeed.
So why do most of the other countries in the developed world, that do have universal health care, deliver better overall health care outcomes for 60% less (10% of GDP) than the current US system (16% of GDP)?
To add to that, I live in Europe now and move around a lot so I took a private health insurance package that works wherever I need it to.
I took coverage everywhere in the world except the US...because if I wanted to have just that one more country added my premiums went up by 70%.
Doubters can contact the insurer (http://www.bupa-intl.com/) and get a quote themselves.
This is a real money saver untill Obamacare makes you pay for benefits for anyone over 30 hours.
No, they'll just all follow suit with Wal Mart and make sure nobody ever gets enough hours to tip over that threshold.
Then the model should change so that an "employer" will pay a percentage towards healthcare for the employee regardless of the number of hours.
Combined with a lower overall rate for any employee that works full time to motivate employers in that direction, it would put an end to this shit where companies don't want to hire anyone because they don't want to pay any benefits.
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
So how about having separate lanes for motos and light/aero cars with a divider between these lanes and the truck/old car/I have an SUV so stay the fuck out of my way lanes?
Employers are afraid to commit and invest in their employees any more. I worked at a call center that was a "temp-to-hire" once - they had around 50 full time employees, including the 20-odd folks in management. Another 100 were temp workers who were brought in, worked to the bone until they burned out, then let go. The highest performers (read: the people who didn't screw up) were offered full time positions with the company, or promotions. The need for this could have been alleviated with better training, but training employees is expensive. Better to hire a lot of them short term through a temp agency, see which ones fit in, and just let the others go, in a constant pattern of churn.
I quit that place despite being one of the rare full timers, because I decided I'd much rather work on computers directly than just talk to people about them.
It's not a question of fear. It's to reduce costs, increase shareholder value, all that good stuff. If you give your employees a good place to work they won't leave.
Another way to look at this is that corporations will cut costs wherever possible, including not offering benefits at all if they're not forced (one way or another) to do so.
Part time workers need health care too and this is just one more example of how companies really don't give a shit about their employees.
I think this article is exactly about my primary concern with the idea of a return to manufacturing in the US. Most people think China and Mexico's big advantage is cheap labor. But manufacturing's been in my family for a long time and many of my relatives run large plants. The hourly wage of the employees is a factor, but not nearly as important as many people think. The real problem is being able to scale operations up and down quickly. Can I hire 500 people and have them on the line within a month? Equally, can I let go 500 people just as fast? In mexico and china you certainly can. And with the size of their operations there they might be able to shift those people over to something else. In the US with all of our labor laws you can't do that sort of thing quickly and the loss of even a small contract for a manufacturing plant has devastating repercussions on the floor, with salesman scrambling to find new work quickly. Then when you're at your peak you're turning down contracts for fear of employing too many and having to let them go later. I'm not suggesting that or labor laws are bad on the whole, they are good for society just bad for manufacturing plants.
The Germans have even stricter labor laws and yet they remain highly competitive as they differentiate on more than cost alone.
Slashdot Mirror
I come from a fairly storied background, with family violence and the whole nine yards. The exact same situation?
No. Nobody else has ever been in that exact same situation.
Therefore, nobody has any idea what they'd do.
Right?
Of course I think you can have an idea of what you would do but I don't think you can be certain, no. Even if you are certain, that doesn't mean that you would actually do it. You'll never know unless it actually happens.
On top of that, not everyone has it in them to kill another person - especially if they think / hope that they won't have to...that warning shots would be sufficient to say "I'm serious back the fuck off".
Sounds like a bit of a pipe dream to me...
Actually as a PC repair guy who often does this very thing I say they should throw the contractor in jail, he is making us all look bad.
I've done plenty of work for the city in the past and they know any donations they give to me will be wiped clean so they have no problem handing me desktops and laptops that are being replaced. Is there any records on them? probably but I wouldn't know as the first thing they get is a boot 'n nuke from me, the ONLY thing I don't wipe is the factory restore partition if it has one, everything else? Wiped before I ever mess with the system.
So I'm all for throwing this asshole in jail because its jerks like this that end up causing systems to be disposed of via shotgun. In a dead economy there is plenty of folks hurting out there and these off-lease systems can be used to make sure anybody can have a PC, hell thanks to donations from the city I have a complete desktop system for $50 at the shop. Sure its not the fastest thing in the world but it surfs, burns DVDs, and when somebody needs a PC so their kid can look up info for school reports and they can look for a second job? A system like that can really make a difference. This is why I fricking HATE when assholes like this do dumb shit like just throwing it on eBay, he could have boot n' nuked and been done in no time, throw the lazy ass in jail.
And if you work in a position that has getting rid of older systems as part of your duties? Don't dispose of via shotgun, talk to the local shop guys, talk to the local churches, there is usually a guy like me that is happy to refurb 'em for the poor folks and unlike this douchebag we're happy to do secure wiping on anything you hand us. There is nothing like the feeling of making a difference, just last week I donated a couple of systems to one of the local churches so they could expand their computer classes, they do a lot of work with abused women and teaching them basic computer and office skills helps them get a job and not be dependent on some wife beating scumbag. I wouldn't have been able to hand those systems over if they hadn't been donated to me, so ask around, those old P4s and Athlons may be junkers to you but it could make a difference to somebody else.
It depends. It's easy enough to blame the contractor but there are factors that have to be taken into account.
Is there a written security policy that states that the drives have to be wiped (and with what method or methods)?
Was the contractor presented with said policy and asked to sign each page to indicate that they've seen it?
Was it written into the contract with the contractor that they read and will follow said security policy?
Yes the contractor (if there was one - I didn't read TFA) fucked up but they may not have been the only ones.
GZ: "Hi, neighborhood watch. Do you live around here?"
TM: "I'm going to attack you now."
GZ: "Holy shit, my face is getting pummeled and my head is being slammed into the concrete. I should defend myself before I die."
Just saying, that is a possible way that questioning a high school student could turn into legitimate self defense.
An alternate:
GZ: "You don't belong here leave or I will make you leave"
TM: "Fuck off"
GZ (Grabs TM): "Grumble Mumble!!"
TM (Physically defends himself and turns the table on GZ): "Mumble Grumble!!"
GZ: "Holy shit, my face is getting pummeled and my head is being slammed into the concrete. I should defend myself before I die."
I'm not saying it happened this way. There's no way to know what happened.
"We know for a fact that he followed Martin,"
Stupid mistake #1. Zimmerman got out of the car. If Zimmerman had stayed in the car, then either Martin would have kept walking home, or if he had chosen to attack, would have had to kick in a window to get to Zimmerman, and there would have been no doubt about Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
Stupid mistake #2. Martin did not just keep walking. If Martin had kept on walking regardless of Zimmerman getting out of the car, Martin would have either gotten home safely, or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt.
What is clear is that at some point, for some reason, Martin turned and attacked. Was he a 17 year old gangster wannabe looking for some street cred, and beating up "a creepy cracker" seemed like a way to get it? Did Zimmerman start yelling out racial slurs, goading Martin beyond the point of reason? We don't know, and there was no evidence either way that could convince the jury. So they were left with reasonable doubt. And if you have reasonable doubt, you are required to acquit.
Depends on how aggressive Zimmerman was when he got out of the car.
If Zimmerman was overly aggressive and threatening, which given his record seems quite possible, Martin may not have found it possible to 'just keep walking'.
Did Martin turn and attack or did Zimmerman grab him and Martin was defending himself and the whole thing escalated?
I agree with you that we will never know the truth of it and that the jury probably had a reasonable doubt.
I've always believed that one should not ever brandish a firearm in a confrontation unless they're prepared to use it to cause harm.
Warning shot? No. If you think you can fire a warning shot and "scare someone away," then you've still got other less-lethal methods of handling the situation. (And if nothing else, it wastes ammunition.)
Drawing a firearm is the very last resort. And once you've drawn that weapon weapon, always fire at the person you are in confrontation with (with intent to, you know, actually hit them) -- not in random directions.
(The reason: If you don't intend to shoot the person, don't be waving a gun around. It isn't safe. A gun is not a threat, nor is it a scare tactic. It's a goddamn killing machine. Either use it properly and swiftly, or leave it alone.)
And if the person you're terrified of is the father of your daughter...?
Things are not always so black and white as to make a situation as clear cut as you make it out to be.
It's always so easy to say "I would do this" but unless you've been in the exact same situation you really haven't the slightest idea what you would do.
Civilians don't get to do "warning" shots. The deal with the use of deadly force is that it either is or is not justified. There isn't a situation where it is justified to "just try and scare them" with a gun.
In the case of something like this, the justification would be that you feared for your life. In most places that allow lethal force for self defense, that is a valid reason. The thing is, just firing a warning shots could show that you really DIDN'T have an imminent fear for your life. You weren't so afraid you felt the need to shoot your attacker, just "warn" them. Thus you weren't really in fear for your life, so no justification.
I am not aware of jurisdictions that allow you to use guns to just try and scare people for various reasons. You can use them to defend yourself and sometimes others, but only in grave cases. If the case isn't grave enough for that, then you aren't justified in using it in any way.
Basically as a civilian in a self defense situation don't draw your gun unless to shoot and don't shoot except to kill. If the situation isn't serious enough to warrant that, then a gun isn't the answer.
Disagree.
Firing warning shots could show that you're a decent person who wanted to warn the 'bad guy' off without killing them if possible because, after all, they are still the father of your child.
Warning shots are probably enough to scare off most 'bad guys' that aren't on PCP or something.
I think it's because the other guy was black.
Like in this case. Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots.
A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
Total dead: 0.
20 years for trying to defend herself against against someone she already had a protective order against.
She probably should have waited until after he gave her a bloody nose and then killed him with a single shot to the heart at close range.
No one to contest her story of self defense then - and it worked for Zimmerman (right or wrong - I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty as I haven't the slightest idea).
Would you want this nutcase as president?
No, but, I didn't want any of the previous nutcases we've had either. What's the difference?
The difference is of magnitude. When presented with multiple options it's still better to take the least bad of those options.
I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
So you never act in your own interests?
Of course I do - but I also am sure to give something of what I have to those who have much less. It doesn't change my life significantly but it does change theirs. It doesn't really take a lot to make a big difference in the life of a family in a third world country (I travel a lot).
I don't see how it is evil to raise money for the campaign of a politician that helps you. I see how it *can* be evil, if the thing he/she is helping you to do is evil, or if the politician is evil.
I don't think being a climate change denier makes a person evil. It probably makes them stupid. But in all honesty, how many politicians are *not* stupid? What percentage of politicians believe in God? This makes 99+% of politicians in America stupid, or at liars pretending to be stupid, or both.
In a perfect world I would say that we should consider any kind of campaign contributions from anyone to be evil, but what's the alternative?
Force people to donate to all campaigns (i.e. public funding)?
Only allow donations from certain people (e.g. non evil people without agendas)?
If we are going to step outside the world we live in when we start labeling people evil, I am going to say that anyone who doesn't donate 100% of their profits to charity is evil, and therefore 99.9999% of Americans are evil, including google. Every dinner out, or new phone is a wasted opportunity to save a child or children in Africa. Every item of luxury that you enjoy is at the expense of someone else's necessities going unfulfilled.
We can either go through life constantly plagued with guilt even if we do our best, because it's never good enough, or we can just do something better than nothing and something less than everything, and try to enjoy ourselves before we die, and simply refuse to accept 100% complete responsibility for every bad thing that happens to someone else.
I kinda sucks, but I would rather enjoy my life.
Would you want this nutcase as president?
It's evil to put someone in power to make money over the health and welfare of the people living in your country (or elsewhere for that matter).
As for enjoying your life...by all means, do so.
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."
-- Dante
P.S. I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know. And the title is just trolling for True Believers who think that "Global Warming" is a single monolithic issue, with exactly one meaning and with exactly two sides ("Evangelist" and "Denier"), with no nuance or discussion possible. (As evidence, watch the flood of comments that will follow labeling me a "denier" because I used the words "nuance" and "discussion" in connection with Global Warming.)
It's news because while we can assume that companies (and politicians) are shit by default, many of us would not have the details and be able to discuss it intelligently if we didn't read about it here or elsewhere.
when will the official groping policy be implemented on the campuses?
Freshman year of course
I don't know but... isn't THAT some kind of treason or betrayal of your fellow countrymen or something?
It's only treason if it's against the government.
It's probably safe to assume that there is some bilateral agreement in place between Australia and the US for information sharing (cooperative spying on the civilian populations of both countries).
Legislation is needed to close the loophole apparently being used by many governments that while they are not allowed to spy on their own citizens, allied powers are not stopped from doing so.
The entire H1B program is bullshit.
There is supply in the US. Companies prefer cheap imported labor - young, family-less, unlikely to complain labor instead of more expensive domestic labor.
"In 2010, there were nearly half a million workers on H1B visas in the United States, 18 percent higher than in 2001."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/are-americans-losing-high-skilled-jobs-to-foreigners/
Shitcan the H1B program and not only will the engineers we already have be able to find work but we'll have more engineers in the future to fill the need that will exist.
Assuming engineering work isn't all outsourced overseas, of course.
There are more than 0 affairs that occur in those states, and they do, in fact, kill the women involved.
FTFY
Not exclusively, and the current application of the law was not it's original intent.
Having a woman killed because she was raped us just as un-muslim as it was un-christian for Henry VIII (Or Bill Clinton?) to do what he did.
Cultural and religious standards are only one aspect of the problem, systemic corruption is another.
It's barbaric regardless of the sex of the persons involved.
On top of that, I'd be interested in seeing any actual references you have that show men being punished as the women are because so far I have ONLY seen articles about women being whipped or killed.
Sorry...it does suck doesn't it :-(
References?
Because I've only ever seen articles about the women being punished.
There are more than 0 affairs that occur in those states, and they do, in fact, kill the women involved.
FTFY
Companies shouldn't have to worry about providing insurance to workers, regardless. They should be able to focus on the cost of running their business with static expenses. Countries like Denmark has some of the highest individual entrepreneurship rates in the world. Why? Because the government takes care of providing health care to everyone, as well as all schooling through college. Obviously these are all funded through higher tax rates, but it leaves a lot of unknown headaches from businesses and manages to provide everyone an opportunity to succeed.
Not to mention that Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the world:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/01/09/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2/
So why do most of the other countries in the developed world, that do have universal health care, deliver better overall health care outcomes for 60% less (10% of GDP) than the current US system (16% of GDP)?
To add to that, I live in Europe now and move around a lot so I took a private health insurance package that works wherever I need it to.
I took coverage everywhere in the world except the US...because if I wanted to have just that one more country added my premiums went up by 70%.
Doubters can contact the insurer (http://www.bupa-intl.com/) and get a quote themselves.
No, they'll just all follow suit with Wal Mart and make sure nobody ever gets enough hours to tip over that threshold.
Then the model should change so that an "employer" will pay a percentage towards healthcare for the employee regardless of the number of hours.
Combined with a lower overall rate for any employee that works full time to motivate employers in that direction, it would put an end to this shit where companies don't want to hire anyone because they don't want to pay any benefits.
Given the drag coefficient, I assume this car exhibits Laminar flow. This can get disrupted by external factors (say getting passed by a buss) and result in localized turbulent flow. This would drastically increase the drag on one part of the car, causing a sudden unexpected side load, likely causing a turn (into the passing bus). An airplane bouncing around is not much of an issue, but when your car moves over 6 feet sideways on the freeway unexpectedly, it can be rather bad.
Generally maximally aerodynamic cars are not safe. They may not have gotten to that point, or may have cleverly worked around the issues, but given the lack of side mirrors, I think mileage was the priority over safety here. Its a neat technical feet, but as mentioned in the article, its dangerous in multiple respects.
So how about having separate lanes for motos and light/aero cars with a divider between these lanes and the truck/old car/I have an SUV so stay the fuck out of my way lanes?
Employers are afraid to commit and invest in their employees any more. I worked at a call center that was a "temp-to-hire" once - they had around 50 full time employees, including the 20-odd folks in management. Another 100 were temp workers who were brought in, worked to the bone until they burned out, then let go. The highest performers (read: the people who didn't screw up) were offered full time positions with the company, or promotions. The need for this could have been alleviated with better training, but training employees is expensive. Better to hire a lot of them short term through a temp agency, see which ones fit in, and just let the others go, in a constant pattern of churn.
I quit that place despite being one of the rare full timers, because I decided I'd much rather work on computers directly than just talk to people about them.
It's not a question of fear. It's to reduce costs, increase shareholder value, all that good stuff. If you give your employees a good place to work they won't leave.
‘Bingo’: Iowahawk sums up the jobs report in one tweet about Taco Bell
David Burge @iowahawkblog
Unemployment report in a nutshell: the Taco Bell that had 30 40 hour workers now has 40 30 hour workers.
Behind the Dismal Jobs Numbers: The ‘New’ Economy Takes Shape
Another way to look at this is that corporations will cut costs wherever possible, including not offering benefits at all if they're not forced (one way or another) to do so.
Part time workers need health care too and this is just one more example of how companies really don't give a shit about their employees.
I think this article is exactly about my primary concern with the idea of a return to manufacturing in the US. Most people think China and Mexico's big advantage is cheap labor. But manufacturing's been in my family for a long time and many of my relatives run large plants. The hourly wage of the employees is a factor, but not nearly as important as many people think. The real problem is being able to scale operations up and down quickly. Can I hire 500 people and have them on the line within a month? Equally, can I let go 500 people just as fast? In mexico and china you certainly can. And with the size of their operations there they might be able to shift those people over to something else. In the US with all of our labor laws you can't do that sort of thing quickly and the loss of even a small contract for a manufacturing plant has devastating repercussions on the floor, with salesman scrambling to find new work quickly. Then when you're at your peak you're turning down contracts for fear of employing too many and having to let them go later. I'm not suggesting that or labor laws are bad on the whole, they are good for society just bad for manufacturing plants.
The Germans have even stricter labor laws and yet they remain highly competitive as they differentiate on more than cost alone.