No, but that's generally about what security work pays. You get more if you're unionized, but the south is particularly hostile towards union organizers. So, I'm guessing that the minimum wage figure is probably pretty accurate.
Your guess is completely wrong. I worked security while in college*. I worked it again in the 2003 time frame to supplement unemployment. The rate at that time was just under $11/hour. About 75% above minimum wage.
*Security is the PERFECT job for a college student if you can get second shift. They basically tell you to sit at a desk for hours on end and occasionally look at a monitor, with occasional walks to stretch your legs. Translation: Paid study time.
Surt, please read a history book. The Soviet Union tried that. China is still trying that. In neither country are the people any more rational.
The only thing that will get us more intelligent voters is to eliminate names on the ballots. Just a list of positions. The voter will be responsible for legibly printing the candidates name. If you don't know enough about who is running for office to be able to spell their name, why the hell are you voting for them?
The restrictions of technique would be self imposed.
I've long had issue with the fact that the state can weild disproportionate power in our legal system. My issue stems from the fact that our system is an adversarial system. It works well when both opponents are equally matched in capability and means, but when you allow the state side to fund their case in volumes orders of magnitude greater than what their opponent could expect to literally earn in their lifetime, it breaks and it doesn't fail gracefully like a pair of shoes wearing out, it fails like shattering a plate glass window with your bare hand.
Thinking point: So, you're in favor of abolishing the EPA?
...but...but...then there wouldn't be ANY humans involved.
(Explanation ['cause some people don't seem to get it]: Even the most communistic of nations have a material gain motive. The party operatives and leaders during the heyday of communistic Soviet Union had a much higher living standard that the factory workers or farmers, and the same situation exists in the worker's paradise of China and North Korea.)
The only comedy with this video is that the producers are so self absorbed that they can't see the fact that their radicalism is showing for the world to see. I showed the video to my wife, without an explanation of where it came from. She thought it was a tasteless spoof of environmentalist.
I got the joke. It just wasn't funny. Killing people that disagree with either your premise, or your method of resolving a percieved problem in such a horrific way isn't funny...in any way, shape or form.
As one of those "crazy Libertarians", I agree. Allowing a near monopolist to strong arm the competition into submission is an abdication of responsibility on the part of government. Just think in terms of how this would play out 100 years ago. Instead of MS "persuading" partners to hide advertisements for the competition, MS would be paying hitchmen to pull down their signs or throw rocks through their storefront. It is the place of government to protect the rights of all.
Yeah, because there was no way death panels could ever happen in the real world. No way at all.
There is, and never was, a need to villify the messenger. Socialized medicine has its insurmountable problems. The big one is who gets to decide how much to spend keeping a random person alive. Palin was attacked for this, because you and the left dislike the unavoidable aspect of this ridiculous legislation and would rather not have a rational discussion about it.
No. The root of the problem is the consolidation of power, whether it be in government, corporations, or labor unions. Corporations pay for someone to argue for them in front of elected representatives. So does the AARP. So does the NRA. So does PETA, Green Peace, the SEIU, the AL-CIO. So does $whatever_group_you_support. The government isn't corrupted by people looking for representation. THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES.
The only way to stop the corruption is to stop the government.
Children start chewing on everything in reach at six months, and continue for about a year.
So, your claiming that an 18 month old needs to be protected by the Federal government from the possibility of leaded paperclips included in chemistry sets? Are you even claiming that you would leave the 18 month old unsupervised long enough to eat its toys?
I stand by my comment, and my two (semi)well-adjusted sons.
And the Democrats are sitting there, waiting patiently for anyone that would dare mention cuts to any social program. Why is Sharon Angle "bat-shit crazy"? Because, she would dare to call the Dept of Education worthless and in need of elimination.
Barach Obaman campaigned on the claim that he would take a surgical knife to the budget, and cut any program that has proven itself ineffective. Head Start has been proven to be a complete waste of money. Why is that idiotic program still around?
Republicans know that government is a Hydra. You can't cut off one program, without two more showing up in its place. The only thing you can do is starve it to death. Republicans will cut taxes ("Vote for us! We let you keep your money!"). Democrats create programs ("Vote for us! We'll give you money!"). Neither will campaign on the truth ("Vote for us! We're sane and are going to keep taxes where they're at and cut programs until we reach a sustainable situation. None of you are going to get anything.")
A cheaply made wooden ruler that, after a small amount of bending, starts splintering in a way that will cause it to easily give people splinters may not be good for children under 12.
OMG!! Not a splinter! The next thing you know, the kid might go outside and pick up a stick. Quick! Call the Stick Elimination Gestapo!
Why does it need to be an article of faith? They're demanding that PAPERCLIPS be tested for lead! In a CHEMISTRY KIT! How many examples of complete idiocy do we need before we just conclude that they're all morons?
They just completed widening the sidewalk next to my house. It is now 10ft wide, and still no one walks on them. Two weeks ago, they put up STOP signs at the intersections (Yes, stop signs for the sidewalks). Last week, they took the signs down. Seems that one department with some money to burn was to incompetent to check to see if it was legal to put up extra signs all over the place.
Brand equity, according to perfect market camp, is supposed to prevent this sort of thing. But brand managers care more about quarterly returns than they do about not wrecking the company.
Maybe some of us that believe in a free market have taught our children not to chew on every damn thing within reach, and as such are not that concerned about a some lead paint. I do understand the need for this sort of government oversight considering knuckle dragging sheeple that can barely maintain themselves and thus keep begging for someone else to overlook their brain dead progeny.
What the story is really about is the committee trying to make their mandate apply to absolutely everything, regardless of whether it had any real chance of causing damage to children.
Which is what every beaurucracy does. Slowly expand it's boundaries to increase its size.
Why in the hell is a committee of five people given the power to destroy an entire market segment? At most, the committee should have the power to require a "might contain lead" label. Giving them the power to ban products is just ridiculous.
Agreed. I believe that drunk driving started to really decrease when drunk drivers started to be charged for manslaughter. There is no reason that someone driving stupidly due to self imposed distractions that everyone knows is dangerous should not be charged likewise.
What money? If you ban privately owned vehicles, the value of said privately owned vehicles will plummet to the point of requiring owner to pay to have them disposed of.
Slashdot Mirror
And why "Star Wars" sucked. What was the goal of the Emperor and Darth Vader again?
Someone said that for a good story, you have to give the villains some of the best lines.
No, but that's generally about what security work pays. You get more if you're unionized, but the south is particularly hostile towards union organizers. So, I'm guessing that the minimum wage figure is probably pretty accurate.
Your guess is completely wrong. I worked security while in college*. I worked it again in the 2003 time frame to supplement unemployment. The rate at that time was just under $11/hour. About 75% above minimum wage.
*Security is the PERFECT job for a college student if you can get second shift. They basically tell you to sit at a desk for hours on end and occasionally look at a monitor, with occasional walks to stretch your legs. Translation: Paid study time.
Marijuana has been around for over a century now, and has been very widely used indeed since the 60s.
Methinks your view of history is a mite myopic.
Extremely myopic? Completely blind, maybe?
Surt, please read a history book. The Soviet Union tried that. China is still trying that. In neither country are the people any more rational.
The only thing that will get us more intelligent voters is to eliminate names on the ballots. Just a list of positions. The voter will be responsible for legibly printing the candidates name. If you don't know enough about who is running for office to be able to spell their name, why the hell are you voting for them?
The restrictions of technique would be self imposed.
I've long had issue with the fact that the state can weild disproportionate power in our legal system. My issue stems from the fact that our system is an adversarial system. It works well when both opponents are equally matched in capability and means, but when you allow the state side to fund their case in volumes orders of magnitude greater than what their opponent could expect to literally earn in their lifetime, it breaks and it doesn't fail gracefully like a pair of shoes wearing out, it fails like shattering a plate glass window with your bare hand.
Thinking point: So, you're in favor of abolishing the EPA?
...but...but...then there wouldn't be ANY humans involved.
(Explanation ['cause some people don't seem to get it]: Even the most communistic of nations have a material gain motive. The party operatives and leaders during the heyday of communistic Soviet Union had a much higher living standard that the factory workers or farmers, and the same situation exists in the worker's paradise of China and North Korea.)
The only comedy with this video is that the producers are so self absorbed that they can't see the fact that their radicalism is showing for the world to see. I showed the video to my wife, without an explanation of where it came from. She thought it was a tasteless spoof of environmentalist.
I got the joke. It just wasn't funny. Killing people that disagree with either your premise, or your method of resolving a percieved problem in such a horrific way isn't funny...in any way, shape or form.
As one of those "crazy Libertarians", I agree. Allowing a near monopolist to strong arm the competition into submission is an abdication of responsibility on the part of government. Just think in terms of how this would play out 100 years ago. Instead of MS "persuading" partners to hide advertisements for the competition, MS would be paying hitchmen to pull down their signs or throw rocks through their storefront. It is the place of government to protect the rights of all.
I wonder how much the father got charged in roaming charges?
Yeah, because there was no way death panels could ever happen in the real world. No way at all.
There is, and never was, a need to villify the messenger. Socialized medicine has its insurmountable problems. The big one is who gets to decide how much to spend keeping a random person alive. Palin was attacked for this, because you and the left dislike the unavoidable aspect of this ridiculous legislation and would rather not have a rational discussion about it.
How can we believe anything thing you say, when your sig is such a blatant lie.
No. The root of the problem is the consolidation of power, whether it be in government, corporations, or labor unions. Corporations pay for someone to argue for them in front of elected representatives. So does the AARP. So does the NRA. So does PETA, Green Peace, the SEIU, the AL-CIO. So does $whatever_group_you_support. The government isn't corrupted by people looking for representation. THAT IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES.
The only way to stop the corruption is to stop the government.
Children start chewing on everything in reach at six months, and continue for about a year.
So, your claiming that an 18 month old needs to be protected by the Federal government from the possibility of leaded paperclips included in chemistry sets? Are you even claiming that you would leave the 18 month old unsupervised long enough to eat its toys?
I stand by my comment, and my two (semi)well-adjusted sons.
And the Democrats are sitting there, waiting patiently for anyone that would dare mention cuts to any social program. Why is Sharon Angle "bat-shit crazy"? Because, she would dare to call the Dept of Education worthless and in need of elimination.
Barach Obaman campaigned on the claim that he would take a surgical knife to the budget, and cut any program that has proven itself ineffective. Head Start has been proven to be a complete waste of money. Why is that idiotic program still around?
Republicans know that government is a Hydra. You can't cut off one program, without two more showing up in its place. The only thing you can do is starve it to death. Republicans will cut taxes ("Vote for us! We let you keep your money!"). Democrats create programs ("Vote for us! We'll give you money!"). Neither will campaign on the truth ("Vote for us! We're sane and are going to keep taxes where they're at and cut programs until we reach a sustainable situation. None of you are going to get anything.")
Schumer, while not evil, is wholly corrupted by vote-whoring.
Could you explain how that is NOT evil?
Yes. Because the Dems keep the blowjobs for themselves.
No. They just have less need to lie about it.
A cheaply made wooden ruler that, after a small amount of bending, starts splintering in a way that will cause it to easily give people splinters may not be good for children under 12.
OMG!! Not a splinter! The next thing you know, the kid might go outside and pick up a stick. Quick! Call the Stick Elimination Gestapo!
Why does it need to be an article of faith? They're demanding that PAPERCLIPS be tested for lead! In a CHEMISTRY KIT! How many examples of complete idiocy do we need before we just conclude that they're all morons?
They just completed widening the sidewalk next to my house. It is now 10ft wide, and still no one walks on them. Two weeks ago, they put up STOP signs at the intersections (Yes, stop signs for the sidewalks). Last week, they took the signs down. Seems that one department with some money to burn was to incompetent to check to see if it was legal to put up extra signs all over the place.
Brand equity, according to perfect market camp, is supposed to prevent this sort of thing. But brand managers care more about quarterly returns than they do about not wrecking the company.
Maybe some of us that believe in a free market have taught our children not to chew on every damn thing within reach, and as such are not that concerned about a some lead paint. I do understand the need for this sort of government oversight considering knuckle dragging sheeple that can barely maintain themselves and thus keep begging for someone else to overlook their brain dead progeny.
Where does it show the committee bringing anything to do with religion (other than the worship of government) into this?
What the story is really about is the committee trying to make their mandate apply to absolutely everything, regardless of whether it had any real chance of causing damage to children.
Which is what every beaurucracy does. Slowly expand it's boundaries to increase its size.
Why in the hell is a committee of five people given the power to destroy an entire market segment? At most, the committee should have the power to require a "might contain lead" label. Giving them the power to ban products is just ridiculous.
Agreed. I believe that drunk driving started to really decrease when drunk drivers started to be charged for manslaughter. There is no reason that someone driving stupidly due to self imposed distractions that everyone knows is dangerous should not be charged likewise.
What money? If you ban privately owned vehicles, the value of said privately owned vehicles will plummet to the point of requiring owner to pay to have them disposed of.
1) The windows had already been coated with a material to reduce the glare by 70%.
2) The boats weren't covered in plastic, but did use pitch, which was probably more volatile (I have not data to back that assumption).