If I don't want a union negotiating my working conditions for me, the least I should be able to do is not pay them for doing that. Ideally I'd just not be in their contract, but that's so rarely an option.
They're voted in, but in practice it's nearly impossible to vote one out. There are all sorts of rules about when and how often you can even have the vote to de-unionize, that make it very hard to do. Essentially, everybody who is hired later is forced to abide by the decision of those before them. If there were periodic recertification elections, I'd be much happier, as that would allow employees a much stronger voice in determining whether they want to continue bargaining collectively or not.
They have the choice to find a job at a non-union shop.
The "find a different job" argument isn't good - it is, after all, the same one that anti-union people use when arguing against the existence of unions. "Don't like the benefits here? Find a job that gives you what you want!".
And that would be all well and good, if it wasn't so often the case that people are forced to join the union whether they want to or not. I know the justifications that are given for this, but it's pretty hypocritical to say it's all about freedom when there are often people roped into it against their will.
I'd agree - the Air Force's experimental scramjet aircraft has had a lot of problems with that in the past, to the point where it's slammed into the ocean most of the time due to the shielding heating up and expanding in unexpected ways, changing the airflow and making it lose control. At that point, as long as the laser can get line-of-sight on the target fast enough, and deliver enough power so that it heats up and crashes before it reaches the target, you should be okay. Your targeting systems have to be really fast though.
Totally fair; it is a complex issue, and nuance will be important, especially if we're trying to change the situation rather than understand it.
Thank you - I wish that, especially in today's political climate, more people took the time to listen.
If you're interested in conversations about contemporary Islam, I suggest reading stuff by Maajid Nawaz. He's a moderate liberal Muslim who used to be a jihadist, and has a unique perspective on things.
Disease and death are the natural state of things, and we will never win that war.
We already beat smallpox. We will probably never really beat death, but there are quite a few diseases - at least contagious ones - that we could beat like we beat smallpox. Nothing has stepped in to replace it. New infections arise, and we get better and better about dealing with them.
I think it's reasonable to say you can't do some things if you haven't been vaccinated. You shouldn't be strapped down to a table and given the shot, but maybe you pay higher health insurance premiums and can't work in jobs where you're in contact with children on a regular basis. Maybe children who aren't vaccinated shouldn't be in some schools.
I think there's plenty of room to criticize the non-violent Wahhabists for using rhetoric that is so easily used as justification by the violent ones. Are they less bad than the violent ones? Certainly. But that doesn't mean they're exempt from blame.
It also means they can't see his tweets when they're logged in; that's still not stifling dissent. Your statements initially were about Trump, but afterwards you made quite a few statements that didn't specify that. I hope you learn to be more positive - seems like you could use it.
1) Blocking people on Twitter isn't silencing them, it just means that Trump won't see what they're saying unless he looks - they can still say things though, 2) Your statement was "It is not legal to silence dissent.", not "It is not legal for the US President to silence dissent", and 3) You probably shouldn't be calling someone an idiot when you're saying incorrect things and being an asshole about it.
Very likely, and even if Twitter counted as a public forum for that purpose, they can still tweet at the @POTUS account. I'm not aware of people being blocked by it.
Ultimately, we're talking about a state tax here, correct? Which means it's unlikely that bike paths pay a dividend across the whole state, since it's unlikely that they raise property values across the entire state, or entice significant numbers of people to change states.
Some parking meters are; many cities on the East Coast and Midwest do not have those loops, or at least not city-wide.
Okay, I'm glad it worked out well for your city - that's not the case in mine. It's certainly not an election issue.
Most cyclists have already paid taxes to support road development. If we're expanding or adding bike paths, that is a cost above and beyond the normal road maintenance, especially if not all bike paths follow the road. Frankly, given the state of American infrastructure, any additional tax to improve it probably makes sense.
I live in a big city, and the city pays for most public bike racks. There's simply not enough sidewalk space to let every business put one out, and because they're so close together, there's not much incentive for any individual business to do it. In your area, it would seem to not make sense to use this tax money to install new bike racks, but where I live it's a different scenario.
Many larger cities also prohibit locking your bike to sign posts or trees (in the latter case, they're often too large or not enough of them around for it to be practical anyway).
Assuming that premise is true - I have no interest at this time in debating it - that still doesn't mean that cyclists shouldn't pay a (modest) tax to support construction of new bike paths and maintenance on existing ones - or even installing new bike racks.
That hasn't been my experience, or the experience of many others, but sure, go ahead and talk for me.
Illegal immigration is a crime. I think it's reasonable to keep those who have been here a while and haven't committed any other crimes (or minor ones, like jaywalking), and those who came here as children. But many of them don't fit into these categories, and it's entirely reasonable to not let them stay. What's the point of having an immigration system if we aren't going to enforce it?
That's a good point, and one I should have touched on. The government can be malicious, but sometimes it's just well-meaning but incompetent.
I think that law probably goes too far - someone (or several people) who has been on the system should definitely have input, but I worry that limiting it to only people on the system would disenfranchise everyone else. It also sets a dangerous precedent - I don't want only former military members to be able to make laws about the military, or only former ISP executives making laws about ISPs.
People should approach both corporations and government with healthy skepticism. The problem with treating the government as a) trustworthy, and b) an extension of myself and others is threefold. One, all governments have shown that they do things in secret - sometimes it's for the good of the public, but often it's not. Two, power corrupts, and generally speaking government has quite a bit of power. Three, not everybody in society has your best interests in mind, but sometimes they have more sway over the government than you do. Sometimes it's quite unbalanced, and they use this power against you in various degrees of secrecy.
About as stupid as your argument, apparently. Yeah, deer are primarily herbivores, like gorillas. What's your point?
I'm not arguing about what gorillas do or do not eat. We agree on that. They are the outliers amongst the great apes. Human, chimps, bonobos, and others all hunt and kill other animals for food.
Most gorilla teeth are larger than ours. They use their teeth for a lot of things, including defense. Comparing our teeth to an animal that is primarily carnivorous doesn't make sense either, since we aren't carnivores.
Well that's just ludicrous. The pharma company has a patent on the virus and process used to make these, but not on the cells themselves. The cells replicating inside of you definitely don't violate patent law.
There's no definitive answer to whether you retain immunity to things you were previously exposed to or vaccinated against, although the trend is that you probably lose some of your previous immunity. It varies a lot based on what T cell therapy you got, and there's some patient to patient variability as well. The one in this article kills almost all B cells - cancerous and healthy - so those patients lose a lot more immunity than you probably did.
Slashdot Mirror
If I don't want a union negotiating my working conditions for me, the least I should be able to do is not pay them for doing that. Ideally I'd just not be in their contract, but that's so rarely an option.
They're voted in, but in practice it's nearly impossible to vote one out. There are all sorts of rules about when and how often you can even have the vote to de-unionize, that make it very hard to do. Essentially, everybody who is hired later is forced to abide by the decision of those before them. If there were periodic recertification elections, I'd be much happier, as that would allow employees a much stronger voice in determining whether they want to continue bargaining collectively or not.
They have the choice to find a job at a non-union shop.
The "find a different job" argument isn't good - it is, after all, the same one that anti-union people use when arguing against the existence of unions. "Don't like the benefits here? Find a job that gives you what you want!".
"Everyone I don't like is a shill: a child's guide to online discussions"
And that would be all well and good, if it wasn't so often the case that people are forced to join the union whether they want to or not. I know the justifications that are given for this, but it's pretty hypocritical to say it's all about freedom when there are often people roped into it against their will.
I'd agree - the Air Force's experimental scramjet aircraft has had a lot of problems with that in the past, to the point where it's slammed into the ocean most of the time due to the shielding heating up and expanding in unexpected ways, changing the airflow and making it lose control. At that point, as long as the laser can get line-of-sight on the target fast enough, and deliver enough power so that it heats up and crashes before it reaches the target, you should be okay. Your targeting systems have to be really fast though.
Totally fair; it is a complex issue, and nuance will be important, especially if we're trying to change the situation rather than understand it.
Thank you - I wish that, especially in today's political climate, more people took the time to listen.
If you're interested in conversations about contemporary Islam, I suggest reading stuff by Maajid Nawaz. He's a moderate liberal Muslim who used to be a jihadist, and has a unique perspective on things.
Disease and death are the natural state of things, and we will never win that war.
We already beat smallpox. We will probably never really beat death, but there are quite a few diseases - at least contagious ones - that we could beat like we beat smallpox. Nothing has stepped in to replace it. New infections arise, and we get better and better about dealing with them.
I think it's reasonable to say you can't do some things if you haven't been vaccinated. You shouldn't be strapped down to a table and given the shot, but maybe you pay higher health insurance premiums and can't work in jobs where you're in contact with children on a regular basis. Maybe children who aren't vaccinated shouldn't be in some schools.
I think there's plenty of room to criticize the non-violent Wahhabists for using rhetoric that is so easily used as justification by the violent ones. Are they less bad than the violent ones? Certainly. But that doesn't mean they're exempt from blame.
It also means they can't see his tweets when they're logged in; that's still not stifling dissent. Your statements initially were about Trump, but afterwards you made quite a few statements that didn't specify that. I hope you learn to be more positive - seems like you could use it.
1) Blocking people on Twitter isn't silencing them, it just means that Trump won't see what they're saying unless he looks - they can still say things though, 2) Your statement was "It is not legal to silence dissent.", not "It is not legal for the US President to silence dissent", and 3) You probably shouldn't be calling someone an idiot when you're saying incorrect things and being an asshole about it.
The article we're commenting on appears to be a state tax.
Very likely, and even if Twitter counted as a public forum for that purpose, they can still tweet at the @POTUS account. I'm not aware of people being blocked by it.
Are you really claiming that blocking people on Twitter is illegal?
Ultimately, we're talking about a state tax here, correct? Which means it's unlikely that bike paths pay a dividend across the whole state, since it's unlikely that they raise property values across the entire state, or entice significant numbers of people to change states.
Some parking meters are; many cities on the East Coast and Midwest do not have those loops, or at least not city-wide.
Okay, I'm glad it worked out well for your city - that's not the case in mine. It's certainly not an election issue.
I'd argue that regulatory positions are different from elected ones, since ultimately elected positions are in charge of many/all appointed positions.
Most cyclists have already paid taxes to support road development. If we're expanding or adding bike paths, that is a cost above and beyond the normal road maintenance, especially if not all bike paths follow the road. Frankly, given the state of American infrastructure, any additional tax to improve it probably makes sense.
I live in a big city, and the city pays for most public bike racks. There's simply not enough sidewalk space to let every business put one out, and because they're so close together, there's not much incentive for any individual business to do it. In your area, it would seem to not make sense to use this tax money to install new bike racks, but where I live it's a different scenario.
Many larger cities also prohibit locking your bike to sign posts or trees (in the latter case, they're often too large or not enough of them around for it to be practical anyway).
Assuming that premise is true - I have no interest at this time in debating it - that still doesn't mean that cyclists shouldn't pay a (modest) tax to support construction of new bike paths and maintenance on existing ones - or even installing new bike racks.
Why? Cars do it more often than cyclists. By 1100% easily.
First, citation? Second, are we talking per capita or absolute numbers?
Proclamation by assertion means fuck all, moron.
And here I'm going to point you to the second line in your comment, where you do exactly that.
That hasn't been my experience, or the experience of many others, but sure, go ahead and talk for me.
Illegal immigration is a crime. I think it's reasonable to keep those who have been here a while and haven't committed any other crimes (or minor ones, like jaywalking), and those who came here as children. But many of them don't fit into these categories, and it's entirely reasonable to not let them stay. What's the point of having an immigration system if we aren't going to enforce it?
That's a good point, and one I should have touched on. The government can be malicious, but sometimes it's just well-meaning but incompetent.
I think that law probably goes too far - someone (or several people) who has been on the system should definitely have input, but I worry that limiting it to only people on the system would disenfranchise everyone else. It also sets a dangerous precedent - I don't want only former military members to be able to make laws about the military, or only former ISP executives making laws about ISPs.
People should approach both corporations and government with healthy skepticism. The problem with treating the government as a) trustworthy, and b) an extension of myself and others is threefold. One, all governments have shown that they do things in secret - sometimes it's for the good of the public, but often it's not. Two, power corrupts, and generally speaking government has quite a bit of power. Three, not everybody in society has your best interests in mind, but sometimes they have more sway over the government than you do. Sometimes it's quite unbalanced, and they use this power against you in various degrees of secrecy.
About as stupid as your argument, apparently. Yeah, deer are primarily herbivores, like gorillas. What's your point?
I'm not arguing about what gorillas do or do not eat. We agree on that. They are the outliers amongst the great apes. Human, chimps, bonobos, and others all hunt and kill other animals for food.
Most gorilla teeth are larger than ours. They use their teeth for a lot of things, including defense. Comparing our teeth to an animal that is primarily carnivorous doesn't make sense either, since we aren't carnivores.
Well that's just ludicrous. The pharma company has a patent on the virus and process used to make these, but not on the cells themselves. The cells replicating inside of you definitely don't violate patent law.
There's no definitive answer to whether you retain immunity to things you were previously exposed to or vaccinated against, although the trend is that you probably lose some of your previous immunity. It varies a lot based on what T cell therapy you got, and there's some patient to patient variability as well. The one in this article kills almost all B cells - cancerous and healthy - so those patients lose a lot more immunity than you probably did.