Deer tend to somehow contrive the accident so that they always get hit on the hip. Don't ask me how the hell this happens, but it is true in every deer hit I've seen, and I didn't even take note of it until some avid deer hunters told me about it. When they get hit on the hip, it will bust their bladder and ruin the meat.
Because, you can't improve the system enough to actually make a difference. The problem you're trying to solve is to secure against an unknown threat coming from an unknown person from among millions, at an unknown time. Who the hell could have ever guess to scan against exploding underwear? Fixing the system would involve getting rid of the scanners and then certain people would lose all the kickbacks.
It's also the "right to walk next door for a job" law, that ensures that I don't have to pay a patronizing and useless union for the right to sell my labor for what I believe it is worth. If unions actually provided a service, there is no way they would ever get busted.
The companies directors felt that resources would be better spent on projects which you were not qualified to help in. You were not qualified to be a director, so who are you to second guess their decision? If they are following the market, their decision would be correct, and would help the economy, overall. If they are not following the market, then their company will fail, and someone with a better understanding will take their place. In either case, it is in the interest of the directors to make the best use of their available resources. They could have no interest in failing.
The alternative is to have a bureaucrat, generally and necessarily with a poor understanding of a particular market and no vested interest in the success or failure of a particular company, make the decisions.
In either case, how is your assessment of the directors decision amount to anything more than grousing? More particularly, if they haven't delivered an embedded system to the market, and the market is desirious of an embedded system, why have you not attempted to create and deliver one?
And I've met enough clueless left wingers to know that given a smidgen of control, they'd run any business straight into the ground. You obviously have never run a business, and have no clue of the dreadful ramifications of underpaying your staff. Chew on this for a minute: every cowboy knows that you water your horse before drinking yourself.
Now, please read a book or take a business class before trying to decide that someone is underpayed. Just because they are not giving you what you think you're worth, doesn't mean you're being underpayed. Given the content of your post, I don't see how you could be worth anything.
And the reason the various levels are so bad at implementing them is that they are rarely for the actual public good. For most cases, they are either for raising funds or for giving advantages to one industry or another.
-red light cameras actually decrease safety, but raise revenue -laws requiring a license to be a hairdresser or cab driver. Licenses that are so expensive, the keep newcomers out.
If you're somebody who (like me) has a high-paying white-collar job and a couple years' expenses in the bank, it's much easier to stand up to your employer and treat it as a relationship between equals, because you can in fact leave when you want to with reasonable certainty that you'll be OK until you find another job. If you're like a majority of Americans and living on 0 or negative savings, then it's basically impossible to do so.
You're saying that a person that has ordered their life to be a wage-slave, putting themselves into debt to the point that they can't live a few weeks without working, is not equal to a successful employer that can an afford to wage the storm of replacing an employee. Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. Still doesn't answer the question of what right does that irresponsible employee have to demand continued employment from the responsible employer?
So the government, comprised of equally retarded citizens, steps in to assist them. The bureaucratic retards, now equipped with powerful force of the state, are expected to do a much better job of ordering the lives of the menial retards, than they could have managed themselves.
How is this not treating the citizenry like children?
So? You would want to stop them, but continue to be employed by them at the same time? When did fighting for what's right mean that you would suffer no consequence? If Jennifer is so righteous and high-minded, she is free to continue a campaign of whistle-blowing. She is not guaranteed a check from the employer that she is confronting, however.
A fee for service doctor in the next town currently charges $45/visit. He doesn't have to pay for the full time assistants to deal with the various insurance companies, so he both charges less and spends more time with each patient. The problem with the US system is that we have come to expect insurance to pay for maintenance.
and I bet that if you were stranded with no food and only a rifle, that you would refuse to shoot bambi? Go plug in another Disney movie, and leave the adults alone.
For goodness' sake, read a little would you. I suggest "Wealth of Nations". If I can't make a profit off of hiring you, why would I bother? I could just take my money and retire to a house in the country. The only thing the government will ensure is that everyone is equally poor. I don't go to work to make friend. I go to work to make money. If I'm employing you, I'm not hiring you to have a friend. I'm hiring you in order to see a return on my investment. If I can't see a return, I'm not going to bother. Your worth to me is exactly what you are worth to me. By accepting employment with me, you benefit from making money with your labor that you would not be able to make otherwise. That is the world, whether it makes you feel good or not.
Jennifer equates to the stripper that tells the patrons that they're fat, ugly and don't stand a chance of being with a good looking girl without paying for it. She didn't stand a chance blowing the illusion like that.
The purpose of the business was security theater. By exposing the hand of the magician, obviously she wasn't doing her job. I think the question exposes your delusion that you think anyone in control considers the TSA as anything other than a scam or a jobs program for people to woefully dumb to get a job with a police dept.
It works well right now, because the first wave is populated with the idealists. The greedy, lazy, and dishonorable don't notice them at first. But it usually isn't long after the advertising of some successes for the leeches to start dragging to system down until the drain the host dry.
Why would you bother to go to an interview with the intent of pissing off the potential boss? Were you trying to stay unemployed, or just wanted to torque this one particular person?
Slashdot Mirror
Deer tend to somehow contrive the accident so that they always get hit on the hip. Don't ask me how the hell this happens, but it is true in every deer hit I've seen, and I didn't even take note of it until some avid deer hunters told me about it. When they get hit on the hip, it will bust their bladder and ruin the meat.
Just a piece of useless trivia.
What percentage of those gun accidents occur at the hands of certified citizens?
Because, you can't improve the system enough to actually make a difference. The problem you're trying to solve is to secure against an unknown threat coming from an unknown person from among millions, at an unknown time. Who the hell could have ever guess to scan against exploding underwear? Fixing the system would involve getting rid of the scanners and then certain people would lose all the kickbacks.
It was created by a Republican, you should know by now.
The only difference a Democrat would have made would be to require a solar panel on top, regardless of the fact that the machines are kept indoors.
Well, it's not like they could allow the crisis to go to waste.
It's also the "right to walk next door for a job" law, that ensures that I don't have to pay a patronizing and useless union for the right to sell my labor for what I believe it is worth. If unions actually provided a service, there is no way they would ever get busted.
Your labor IS a commodity to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. Always remember that about ANY employment, American or otherwise.
The companies directors felt that resources would be better spent on projects which you were not qualified to help in. You were not qualified to be a director, so who are you to second guess their decision? If they are following the market, their decision would be correct, and would help the economy, overall. If they are not following the market, then their company will fail, and someone with a better understanding will take their place. In either case, it is in the interest of the directors to make the best use of their available resources. They could have no interest in failing.
The alternative is to have a bureaucrat, generally and necessarily with a poor understanding of a particular market and no vested interest in the success or failure of a particular company, make the decisions.
In either case, how is your assessment of the directors decision amount to anything more than grousing? More particularly, if they haven't delivered an embedded system to the market, and the market is desirious of an embedded system, why have you not attempted to create and deliver one?
And I've met enough clueless left wingers to know that given a smidgen of control, they'd run any business straight into the ground. You obviously have never run a business, and have no clue of the dreadful ramifications of underpaying your staff. Chew on this for a minute: every cowboy knows that you water your horse before drinking yourself.
Now, please read a book or take a business class before trying to decide that someone is underpayed. Just because they are not giving you what you think you're worth, doesn't mean you're being underpayed. Given the content of your post, I don't see how you could be worth anything.
That's funny. You quoted a story about corruption from the Chicago Tribune. Typical Democrat retard.
The fact that you seem to think employers could get away with paying Americans Chinese wages, indicates that you have no idea how economies work.
And the reason the various levels are so bad at implementing them is that they are rarely for the actual public good. For most cases, they are either for raising funds or for giving advantages to one industry or another.
-red light cameras actually decrease safety, but raise revenue
-laws requiring a license to be a hairdresser or cab driver. Licenses that are so expensive, the keep newcomers out.
If you're somebody who (like me) has a high-paying white-collar job and a couple years' expenses in the bank, it's much easier to stand up to your employer and treat it as a relationship between equals, because you can in fact leave when you want to with reasonable certainty that you'll be OK until you find another job. If you're like a majority of Americans and living on 0 or negative savings, then it's basically impossible to do so.
You're saying that a person that has ordered their life to be a wage-slave, putting themselves into debt to the point that they can't live a few weeks without working, is not equal to a successful employer that can an afford to wage the storm of replacing an employee. Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. Still doesn't answer the question of what right does that irresponsible employee have to demand continued employment from the responsible employer?
So the government, comprised of equally retarded citizens, steps in to assist them. The bureaucratic retards, now equipped with powerful force of the state, are expected to do a much better job of ordering the lives of the menial retards, than they could have managed themselves.
How is this not treating the citizenry like children?
And how do "powerful unions" differ from "greedy business"?
So? You would want to stop them, but continue to be employed by them at the same time? When did fighting for what's right mean that you would suffer no consequence? If Jennifer is so righteous and high-minded, she is free to continue a campaign of whistle-blowing. She is not guaranteed a check from the employer that she is confronting, however.
A fee for service doctor in the next town currently charges $45/visit. He doesn't have to pay for the full time assistants to deal with the various insurance companies, so he both charges less and spends more time with each patient. The problem with the US system is that we have come to expect insurance to pay for maintenance.
and I bet that if you were stranded with no food and only a rifle, that you would refuse to shoot bambi? Go plug in another Disney movie, and leave the adults alone.
For goodness' sake, read a little would you. I suggest "Wealth of Nations". If I can't make a profit off of hiring you, why would I bother? I could just take my money and retire to a house in the country. The only thing the government will ensure is that everyone is equally poor. I don't go to work to make friend. I go to work to make money. If I'm employing you, I'm not hiring you to have a friend. I'm hiring you in order to see a return on my investment. If I can't see a return, I'm not going to bother. Your worth to me is exactly what you are worth to me. By accepting employment with me, you benefit from making money with your labor that you would not be able to make otherwise. That is the world, whether it makes you feel good or not.
Jennifer equates to the stripper that tells the patrons that they're fat, ugly and don't stand a chance of being with a good looking girl without paying for it. She didn't stand a chance blowing the illusion like that.
The purpose of the business was security theater. By exposing the hand of the magician, obviously she wasn't doing her job. I think the question exposes your delusion that you think anyone in control considers the TSA as anything other than a scam or a jobs program for people to woefully dumb to get a job with a police dept.
As opposed to the Democrat math of pushing for the "Buffet Rule" that will raise $45B when they're overspending by over $1T a year?
I think your partisan flag is hanging out.
It works well right now, because the first wave is populated with the idealists. The greedy, lazy, and dishonorable don't notice them at first. But it usually isn't long after the advertising of some successes for the leeches to start dragging to system down until the drain the host dry.
Why would you bother to go to an interview with the intent of pissing off the potential boss? Were you trying to stay unemployed, or just wanted to torque this one particular person?
When will they get around to banning employers from requesting letters of reference or performing criminal background checks?