And this differs how from the majority of legislation being passed today?? Do you really think it's ANY different for routine bills, which hide unpalatable special interest laws under 900 pages of impenetrable legalese, then are presented to Congress with only a few days to consider them??
As downsizedc.org says, bills should both be single subject, and required to be read publicly and in full well prior to any vote. This should be equally applied to treaties, since they are effectively laws that We The People are forced to live with.
Since when is our government supposed to be doing the bidding of outside forces, rather than the will of The People??
How did we let things get this far out of The People's control??
Well, I can tell you... it boils down to the old saw, "He who robs Peter to pay Paul is assured of Paul's support." Once there are more Pauls being paid than Peters being robbed, the country is lost.
The French Revolution should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the notion that "if there are no rich, there can be no poor".
You have a very narrow definition of "rich". I like what a friend said about it -- "If I have more than I need, I am rich." And only if I have more than I need, can I pay anyone else for their labour.
Your desired scenario is pure Marxism -- and we've already had a number of social(ist) experiments down that path. Tell me how they did better than what we have in the U.S. today? And explain why is it the more capitalism a people or nation has, the fewer of its individuals live in life-threatening poverty?? Even China has figured that out.
I would also posit a relationship between direct gov't power (the ability to simply haul you into the street and have you shot, which was ALSO part of the French egalitarian movement) and Marxist systems -- since they require total gov't power to enforce that egalitarianism.
And if it's unfair to profit from the work of others -- why are you posting here on/. where our posts drive the advertising revenue that profits its owners??
I reached a related conclusion, that the chart has an agenda, when I couldn't find info on what its creators thought were "liberal" or "conservative" judgments.
Look at the U.S. from the period of about 1800 thru 1850. Almost everything was private sector. Roads were only built as needed by industry; people had to pay for education and most didn't get any; private police... well, we still have that in some places, we call it the Mob.
I recall when the meatcutter's union was on strike, members were not allowed to express any opinion in public about the union's negotiations, such as whether they thought it would actually do them any good wage-wise, etc.
Grew up in Great Falls myself, and lived around Bozeman... or is that now Bozangeles. Currently I'm in SoCal, and yes, it smacks of Calif thinking, where everything has to be micromanaged, lest you think of something for yourself. Quite unlike Montana thinking, as amply demonstrated by the various excellent states-rights resolutions of the past couple years.
Bozeman is about due for a headwacking by the state gov't, before it becomes another Missoula.
And yes, the housing costs vs income are insane, driven skyward thanks to the unholy symbiosis of realtors and Californians who don't know the price of anything, but have lots of money to burn after selling their $500k shack in the Bay area. Consequently, native Montanans, making fair Montana wages, can no longer afford to buy a home in their own state.
I use part of my web hosting as a "personal networking stuff" site. According to this, I'd be required to give over access to that -- essentially, handing over the tools to hack my site. Aside from all the repercussions against the City of Bozeman, this could put me in jeopardy of being prosecuted for complicity in a hacking scheme, should some netwit prosecutor decide it looks like a good case.
Actually, no. This sort of invasive background check (far outside its own legitimate business) is the New Liberal thinking, imported from California, where the gov't knows what's best for you and invades every facet of your life to ensure that you do nothing but what's best for society (as defined by gov't micromanagers).
There's good reason why native Montanans have come to call it the city of Bozangeles.
You might also contact the Montana legislature (or if the session is out, whatever agency in Helena is taking names for future butt-kicking). Remember that Bozeman just tried to force an amendment to let them keep their redlight cameras in the face of new state law banning same... which indicates to me that Bozeman thinks it is above the law, and may be bordering on corruption. Bozeman may be just the example needed to demonstrate state privacy laws, or need for same.
[I grew up in MT, and used to live in Bozeman... the fact that it's becoming Bozangeles is probably a great deal of the problem.]
Actually, I'd guess that unions might be first in line to force members to give over their rights -- so long as it's the UNION that's asking 'em to give it up, unions seem to be just fine with that sort of thing.
If they really care about the character described by the content, they can go look at the social-networking sites for themselves.
I'd be more concerned that this is actually going to weed out the honest people (who won't stand for the invasion of privacy), while leaving intact the applicants who have numerous shellgame accounts, sockpuppets, and the like, who will cheerfully hand over a disposable account containing no real information.
Canadian Pedigree Act covers the Canadian Kennel Club, which in turn requires that dogs registered with them be positively ID'd, either through noseprint or tattoo. I believe they provide the noseprint kits, as a service for people who can't get the dog tattoo'd (which can be expensive if you can't do it yourself).
At any rate, the upshot is that it is a legal method of identifying an individual dog that is registered in Canada.
Skin on other parts of the body has *other* patterns, rather than ridges. So again.. I think it's an artifact of the type of skin, not of a function per se.
Exactly my point. And uniqueness between individuals, especially across species, may itself point to randomness, rather than purpose.
Something can also prove useful even tho it wasn't developed for or selected for that particular purpose or advantage. Frex, the ability to read was not something we evolved per se, but rather is a form of glorified pattern recognition -- which we are using well beyond its original function and purpose.
(Having noted the trolls are out in force today, I can already hear the arguments building on that statement!:)
Dogs often use their noses like a jack-hammer... the nosepad is not particularly sensitive to touch. If your dog is too wiggly to get a noseprint (which one does with a paper-pad and roll-on ink, much as one would footprint a baby), chances are the dog needs more training, and you need lessons on how to be the pack leader, too.
Slashdot Mirror
And this differs how from the majority of legislation being passed today?? Do you really think it's ANY different for routine bills, which hide unpalatable special interest laws under 900 pages of impenetrable legalese, then are presented to Congress with only a few days to consider them??
As downsizedc.org says, bills should both be single subject, and required to be read publicly and in full well prior to any vote. This should be equally applied to treaties, since they are effectively laws that We The People are forced to live with.
Since when is our government supposed to be doing the bidding of outside forces, rather than the will of The People??
How did we let things get this far out of The People's control??
Well, I can tell you... it boils down to the old saw, "He who robs Peter to pay Paul is assured of Paul's support." Once there are more Pauls being paid than Peters being robbed, the country is lost.
The French Revolution should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the notion that "if there are no rich, there can be no poor".
You have a very narrow definition of "rich". I like what a friend said about it -- "If I have more than I need, I am rich." And only if I have more than I need, can I pay anyone else for their labour.
Your desired scenario is pure Marxism -- and we've already had a number of social(ist) experiments down that path. Tell me how they did better than what we have in the U.S. today? And explain why is it the more capitalism a people or nation has, the fewer of its individuals live in life-threatening poverty?? Even China has figured that out.
I would also posit a relationship between direct gov't power (the ability to simply haul you into the street and have you shot, which was ALSO part of the French egalitarian movement) and Marxist systems -- since they require total gov't power to enforce that egalitarianism.
And if it's unfair to profit from the work of others -- why are you posting here on /. where our posts drive the advertising revenue that profits its owners??
So if there are no rich people, who do you suggest to pay wages to the poor people?
Seriously. I want to hear how your egalitarian society will work, where no one has any surplus money (ie. where there are no rich people).
Nah, you got it backwards ;)
(I even remember the voice announcing, "...a Quinn-Martin production". Should I feel old??)
I reached a related conclusion, that the chart has an agenda, when I couldn't find info on what its creators thought were "liberal" or "conservative" judgments.
The Bill of Rights doesn't delineate what people are ALLOWED to do. Rather, it delineates what the government CANNOT do.
Look at the U.S. from the period of about 1800 thru 1850. Almost everything was private sector. Roads were only built as needed by industry; people had to pay for education and most didn't get any; private police... well, we still have that in some places, we call it the Mob.
Do you see any poor people paying wages to anyone else? No?? then who DOES pay wages?
Oh, must be those rich folks are good for something after all...
I recall when the meatcutter's union was on strike, members were not allowed to express any opinion in public about the union's negotiations, such as whether they thought it would actually do them any good wage-wise, etc.
So that's Right #1 ....
You can call yourself anything you like so long as there is no intent to defraud. I'm not sure how it would be seen by the city HR dept.
But if I were to encounter such a request, my response would be "none of your business".
Grew up in Great Falls myself, and lived around Bozeman... or is that now Bozangeles. Currently I'm in SoCal, and yes, it smacks of Calif thinking, where everything has to be micromanaged, lest you think of something for yourself. Quite unlike Montana thinking, as amply demonstrated by the various excellent states-rights resolutions of the past couple years.
Bozeman is about due for a headwacking by the state gov't, before it becomes another Missoula.
You wanted http://www.city-data.com/city/Bozeman-Montana.html
And yes, the housing costs vs income are insane, driven skyward thanks to the unholy symbiosis of realtors and Californians who don't know the price of anything, but have lots of money to burn after selling their $500k shack in the Bay area. Consequently, native Montanans, making fair Montana wages, can no longer afford to buy a home in their own state.
I use part of my web hosting as a "personal networking stuff" site. According to this, I'd be required to give over access to that -- essentially, handing over the tools to hack my site. Aside from all the repercussions against the City of Bozeman, this could put me in jeopardy of being prosecuted for complicity in a hacking scheme, should some netwit prosecutor decide it looks like a good case.
Actually, no. This sort of invasive background check (far outside its own legitimate business) is the New Liberal thinking, imported from California, where the gov't knows what's best for you and invades every facet of your life to ensure that you do nothing but what's best for society (as defined by gov't micromanagers).
There's good reason why native Montanans have come to call it the city of Bozangeles.
You might also contact the Montana legislature (or if the session is out, whatever agency in Helena is taking names for future butt-kicking). Remember that Bozeman just tried to force an amendment to let them keep their redlight cameras in the face of new state law banning same... which indicates to me that Bozeman thinks it is above the law, and may be bordering on corruption. Bozeman may be just the example needed to demonstrate state privacy laws, or need for same.
[I grew up in MT, and used to live in Bozeman... the fact that it's becoming Bozangeles is probably a great deal of the problem.]
And remember -- rape, pillage, THEN burn!!
My Viking ancestors are cheering you on as you march on Bozeman's City Hall, axe raised high!!
Actually, I'd guess that unions might be first in line to force members to give over their rights -- so long as it's the UNION that's asking 'em to give it up, unions seem to be just fine with that sort of thing.
I couldn't get the site to take my comment, but... feel free to filch and repost:
Such policies actively select FOR dishonesty.
Honest people don't like their privacy invaded. The most honest will walk away from the job rather than give up their rights.
But it won't bother the dishonest, who'll simply give up one of their sockpuppet accounts.
(signed, a former Bozeman resident)
If they really care about the character described by the content, they can go look at the social-networking sites for themselves.
I'd be more concerned that this is actually going to weed out the honest people (who won't stand for the invasion of privacy), while leaving intact the applicants who have numerous shellgame accounts, sockpuppets, and the like, who will cheerfully hand over a disposable account containing no real information.
In short, this policy selects FOR dishonesty.
Trust me, you will enjoy your regular mutt a lot more, and he'll be happier too, if you get the master-and-dog relationship right :)
Canadian Pedigree Act covers the Canadian Kennel Club, which in turn requires that dogs registered with them be positively ID'd, either through noseprint or tattoo. I believe they provide the noseprint kits, as a service for people who can't get the dog tattoo'd (which can be expensive if you can't do it yourself).
At any rate, the upshot is that it is a legal method of identifying an individual dog that is registered in Canada.
Skin on other parts of the body has *other* patterns, rather than ridges. So again.. I think it's an artifact of the type of skin, not of a function per se.
Exactly my point. And uniqueness between individuals, especially across species, may itself point to randomness, rather than purpose.
Something can also prove useful even tho it wasn't developed for or selected for that particular purpose or advantage. Frex, the ability to read was not something we evolved per se, but rather is a form of glorified pattern recognition -- which we are using well beyond its original function and purpose.
(Having noted the trolls are out in force today, I can already hear the arguments building on that statement! :)
Dogs often use their noses like a jack-hammer... the nosepad is not particularly sensitive to touch. If your dog is too wiggly to get a noseprint (which one does with a paper-pad and roll-on ink, much as one would footprint a baby), chances are the dog needs more training, and you need lessons on how to be the pack leader, too.
(Disclosure: I am a professional dog trainer. :)