Who said thrashing? I said a good wack. We're not looking to beat the kid into submission, just give them something to think about. Yes, I am an evil heathen who believes in spanking your kid as part of your diciplinary tools.
Actualy, there's a very good reason why it could be that way. Wether it's true or not I don't know, but the reason is simple. The voting machines are bought and under the control and regulation of the government. ATMs are under private contract.
For an example of what I mean, go look at the construction and design of a public school building, and then go find a private building. You'll notice the private building is a far better building.
And can you prove that the scan tron printed was exactly what the voted intended (remember people were confused over the fucking butterfly ballots). Can you also prove that the scantron reported an acurate count for the double check? Can you then prove that the scantron sheets that were sent to be verified are the same ones that made it into the fireproof boxes? Can you then prove that the ones counted from the fireproof boxes are both all of the votes and the same accurate count from the original vote? Finaly, even if you can prove all of that, can you prove the voter voted for the person they wanted to win (again remember the buterfly ballots)?
In short, somewhere along the line, voting requires trust.
Actualy, anything less than chronic pain / illness, permanent disfigurement, potential death or permanent loss I would consider to be not serious when you're talking about a first time trial of a drug in humans. Sorry but there's only so much you can be sure of before you test something on a first human and to be honest, if you're going to be the first human you should be prepared to die the moment they give you the drug.
McDonalds is a global company yet it appears that the US is the only one suffering from an obesity epidemic, and you think it's McDonald's fault? Why then isn't the rest of the world suffering from obesity?
You know what else gets a kid to stop whining for some McDonalds? Giving them a good solid wack, telling them they will eat what they're told or they will go hungry and then sending them to their rooms until they decide the McDonalds is not worth being hungry over.
Having worked with the public on numerous occasions and knowing about teir selective memory (and knowing how anal retentive lawers are) I would guess that the actual statement from Parexel was "There should be no serious side effects" to say otherwise is outright lying as the purpose of the TEST is to see what's going to happen. Promises to the contrary were probably not made, but people seem to not understand the english language these days. 6-8 weeks does not mean call us up in 6 weeks demanding to know where your stuff is.
You missed the point. Nothing the UN generates, resolution recomendation or otherwise is binding. It's a suggestion at best, only capable of being enforced when seperate countries band together to impose their will on another sovergen nation. The UN does not carry the wieght of law because it does not have the force to enforce those resolutions and laws.
Actualy, I have and do work with the public on a regular basis, and I've found that setting a firm line as to where you will allow customers to go is the best way to deal with them. I've had more than my share of customers rant a rave, and when it gets to the point where the ranting and raving is a disruption to the store, every single one of them has been kicked out of the store. And instead of the reaction of other customers being disgust at me, it's disgust at the customer who was acting like a child and unable to discuss a disagreeable situation like a reasonable adult.
America was built on civil disobedience. The forefathers designed the jury system as protection against unjust laws and unjust application of law. Put down the xbox and open a book.
There is nothing unjust about me as a business owner telling you to leave my property, nor is there anything unjust about arresting you if you return after I have told you that you are not welcome back in my store. The key point that you missed is that I will tresspass you first, meaning I will tell you to leave my store, and that you are no longer allowed to be on my property. This gives you the perfectly legal opportunity to collect your belongings and leave the premise. Shoudl you refuse or return you are then in violation of tresspass laws and you can and will legaly be arrested.
How does making a big public display hurt my cause? Wouldn't that actually work in my favor?
Clearly you've never been in a store where a customer is making a public display.
Hey, Everybody look at me I'm being arrested because I refuse to show ID when buying peaches. I think that might actually get a few people to question the current situation. Do you think I would stop after being arrested? I'm thinking picketing your business and drawing more attention to the situation would be the logical next step. Hell, I could be back at your store the same fucking day with a sign in hand.
Except you aren't being arrested for refusing to show ID. In this case you are lying which also does not help your cause. You have every right not to show ID, you just can't buy my peaches. If you are being arrested it's because A) you have already made a public scene, B) you've already been told by me that you are no longer welcome in my store and C) you have refused to leave or you have returned despite being told you are not allowed in my store.
So being required to show ID to buy food is ok with you? Could you enlighten me as to why I should be required to show ID to buy peaches?
Because they're my peaches, not yours. If I want you to show ID for every purchase I can. If you don't want to, you can leave. Simple.
Pfft. strawman argument. A credit card is not ID and the store will accept either cash or a credit card. Paying with a credit card is NOT the same as being REQUIRED to show ID.
You missed the point, I can pull all the identifying information I need about you from your credit card if I wanted to. So you are not saving any privacy violations here, leaving your last argument the simple principle of not wanting to show ID for a food purchase, which is f course your right. But it's my right to ask for ID and refuse a sale when you won't provide it.
And you're a fool for believing one man can't make a difference.
One man can make a difference, but one man can not make a difference on his own. It requires getting others together to make a concentrated effort to make a difference. That is, you will leave and not buy peaches and picket and do what ever but you don't matter. Now if you generate enough good will to your cause such that I see either a noticeable decline in business or a noticeable upswing in bad press you may cause me to change my policies, not because you matter, I don't care about you, but because my customer base as a whole matters.
I would love to live on the beach as well. As it stands, I live in a relatively cheap suburb of a major US city. $5.15 a hour doesn't cut it here. Neither does the $9 per hour you cited previously. That certainly does not stop companies near here and downtown from charging $5.15 or less, in the case of illegal workers. The companies don't care if they're not paying enough for their workers to actually live.
And yet clearly these workers are living, as they are returning to work each day. Furthermore, the fact that they are hiring illegals is evidence that the minimum wage is hurting the comunity was otherwise employable legal workers are being turned away because the business is unable to pay them less than the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage will give the businesses more incentive to hire illegal workers, and they'll still be paid minimum wage. At a certain point, you will find it will start to generate incentive to pay legal workers less than minimum wage but do it under the table benefiting these legal workers (because they don't pay taxes) and benefiting the company (keeping costs down).
Anyone working minimum wage for longer than a year is either A) working at that wage by choice or B) too lazy to get another job or raise. If you've never worked a minimum wage job before give it a try and see how bad you have to perform to NOT get a raise within a year.
People can not "mange" what they do not have.
They have the money plenty, they're just wasting it. But if you want them to have more money, try reducing the minimum wage, which will drive costs down which will in turn drive prices down which will generate more spending power for people making small amounts of money.
Dictating to others what legal contracts they can enter into is not a sign of democracy.
Or conversely if we would like to play with fun hot button issues:
The nice thing about living in a democracy is that the people decide what rights to give every one and that's what marrige is.
Or how about
The nice thing about living in a democracy is that the people decide what privacy people should have, and that's what the government is doing when they spy on you.
Why should you be able to tell me that I can not legaly work for less than $5.15 / hour? Who are you to prevent me from doing so? What right do you have to dictate to me a private citizen what wage I shall work for?
Conversely, maybe you shouldn't live somewhere where you can't afford the cost of living. I would love to live on the beach, but I can't afford to live there on the wages I can earn, therefore I don't live on the beach. Perhaps we should just eliminate the minimum wage all together and actualy let the market for each area determine the minimum wage. For example, where I do live, while minimum wage is $5.15, no one actualy makes that. Unskilled labor STARTS at $7/hr here with raises in a few months after that assuming you were a good worker. By setting arbitrary price floors, you simply raise the cost of living, drive the marginal cost of not working for minimum wage up, increase the likely hood of illegal wage practices and screw more people over.
Take for example company A which has 5 workers working for $5 / hour and they work 5 hour days. Company A has the capacity to hire a new employee, Joe Poor who is willing a capable of working for $5 an hour, thus bettering his life. Now, imagine that the government in it's infinite wisdom decides to raise the minimum wage to $6 / hour. Now every employee is making an additional $5 / day and totaling out to the price of a new employee so that when Joe Poor comes looking for a job, even though he is WILLING to work at $5 an hour to get it, he can't. He is without a job because costs for labor went up, and therefore demand has gone down.
Sure, there is no guarantee that company A would have hired Joe Poor, but by raising the minimum wage by just one dollar, we have insured that it is impossible for him to be hired.
And this ignores the increased costs in terms of taxes and cuts into profit (thus requiring a rise in sale prices) that company A must incure to comply with the new wage.
In the end, minimum wage is not the answer, teaching people to mange their money and their life responsibly is.
And when you do that, I will tresspass you from my property. And when you come back I will have you arrested. Here's the trick to things. They're my peaches, my store, my ass on the line etc. If you don't want to shop here fine. But if you make a big public display about it not only will you hurt your cause, but you will be kicked out of my store because I have a business to run and entertaining your diatrabes about the injustice of showing a piece of plastic to me (especialy because I KNOW you're paying with a credit card which has more information about you than you could ever imagine attached to it) is not part of my business. Sure I'll lose your business but you know what? You don't matter.
In other words, the liberal air fesheners in the bullshit tanks stopped working. Politicians are full of shit, what's happening now is the liberals have fucked the public's ass raw, and the conservatives are promising to use lube with aloe vera
Ask anyone who grew up in NYC years back about everyone in the nieghborhood knowing you. Just because the city at large didn't doesn't mean the local populace didn't.
100 years ago, Alice could meet with Bob, walk into some field, and have a conversation that none could overhear. That is called privacy, and it did exist.
Unless someone happened to be in the same field that they did.
Today, Alice cannot have a conversation with Bob that couldn't be overheard, nowhere.
Sure they can, it's just not as easy.
Not only they can, but they do.
100 years ago, it was hard work for an investigator to collect and correlate all this information. It did occur, but it was expensive to breach the privacy of a person. This ensured that it was done only for relatively few suspects.
Today, the privacy of the entire populance is breached on a regular basis.
100 years ago, if you were falsely accused of a crime and it was a he said she said case, it was hard work to defend your innocence. Today, because of massive data mining all over, an accused rape suspect can prove that he could only have been in contact with the accuser for 10 minutes total, and during that time he was calling his girlfriend and a cab. Information is a double edged sword and has as many good uses as bad. Provided you have full access to your data, you should have little to fear. Furthermore, your point is self defeating as my statement was that privacy didn't exist. Just because it was harder to get the information doesn't mean the information wasn't readily availible.
Last time I checked my credit card bills, it was my money all right. It was just tunnelled through their network.
Then clearly you misunderstand what a credit card is. Allow me to fill you in. A credit card is a revolving line of credit. That is, it is someone allowing you to borrow X ammount of THEIR money to spend as you see fit. You repay the loan with your money. In otherwords, the only thing that's your money is the money spent on paying back the loan. Or to put it another way, the credit card people bought the product with their money and allowed you to have the product in exchange for your money.
A load of crap. So because the president was POPULAR and the politicians didn't want to LOOK bad, they voted to impliment a LAW that they didn't even READ? Excuse me but fuck no, that is entirely unacceptable. As a law maker their job is to protect the interests of their constituents. How does passing laws that they have no clue what they even mean or say protect our interests. Every single congress person that voted (or has ever voted) yes without reading the bill in question is guilty of treason.
Furthermore, your story doesn't hold water given that when renewal time came arround the voting still went yes (and sure as hell wasn't split along party lines. The democrats and the republicans are both out to screw you, it's just a matter of which orafice.
Believing any of this "We can't be heard, we didn't have time to read, it was forced down our throats!" bullshit is just plain stupid. If they really meant it, they would stand up and fight for rights, not back down and play dead.
The point he's trying to get across to you is the vast majority of people who work minimum wage, are not in a position where they need to support themselves or anyone else. Seriously, try an experiment. Go on a job hunt, and count how many jobs actualy pay minimum wage. Then ask yourself how many of the people working those jobs have to support themselves?
It's worth noting that $9/ hour is a certainly a liveable wage for as much as two people. The problem with minimum wage is not that it isn't enough for people, but that people have no clue how to manage their money. I hear people all the time talk about how much their food costs them. When I was making that little amount of money I ate for about $200 - $250 / month and that was eating well. Chicken or beef every dinner, with sides and more. I also fed another person on that money. It takes time yes. It takes work, yes. It takes managing your money too. I managed to get a steak every once in a while, but you don't get to get steak 4 times a week. You can't have soda or milk every day. You can't have alcohol etc etc etc. But if you learn to manage your money, $9 is a liveable wage.
Actualy, it does give him the right to bleed them with a minimum wage. You don't have to work for him. No one does. And companies that can't find workers either up their pay or go out of business. You have no right to dictate to him how he can pay his employees as long as the employees have agreed to that pay.
Then you should not trust them if you know they are threacherous. Expecting privacy from people you can't trust is like expecting honesty from a con man. Privacy, like anything else worth having, has a cost. It's not going to be easy to keep everything perfectly private, but that is the price you pay if you want to be cut off from the system.
ps, is it ironic that the bot filter word for this post is "hostage"?
Feeding the troll but is there something flawed with his reasoning or are you just attacking him because you think you're cooler because you don't believe in a god?
With the right ammount of data, any convoluted collection of data can be disproved. In your senario, since we have his original post, we can show that your example is made up and untrue. The trick is, we need access to all the same data you have. For a modern and real life example of data mining protecting you from a concocted story, see the recent Duke University rape case.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said thrashing? I said a good wack. We're not looking to beat the kid into submission, just give them something to think about. Yes, I am an evil heathen who believes in spanking your kid as part of your diciplinary tools.
True, clear and calm works, but when they're whining incessently clear and calm doesn't take much effect until after they no longer want the food.
Actualy, there's a very good reason why it could be that way. Wether it's true or not I don't know, but the reason is simple. The voting machines are bought and under the control and regulation of the government. ATMs are under private contract.
For an example of what I mean, go look at the construction and design of a public school building, and then go find a private building. You'll notice the private building is a far better building.
And can you prove that the scan tron printed was exactly what the voted intended (remember people were confused over the fucking butterfly ballots). Can you also prove that the scantron reported an acurate count for the double check? Can you then prove that the scantron sheets that were sent to be verified are the same ones that made it into the fireproof boxes? Can you then prove that the ones counted from the fireproof boxes are both all of the votes and the same accurate count from the original vote? Finaly, even if you can prove all of that, can you prove the voter voted for the person they wanted to win (again remember the buterfly ballots)?
In short, somewhere along the line, voting requires trust.
Actualy, anything less than chronic pain / illness, permanent disfigurement, potential death or permanent loss I would consider to be not serious when you're talking about a first time trial of a drug in humans. Sorry but there's only so much you can be sure of before you test something on a first human and to be honest, if you're going to be the first human you should be prepared to die the moment they give you the drug.
McDonalds is a global company yet it appears that the US is the only one suffering from an obesity epidemic, and you think it's McDonald's fault? Why then isn't the rest of the world suffering from obesity?
You know what else gets a kid to stop whining for some McDonalds? Giving them a good solid wack, telling them they will eat what they're told or they will go hungry and then sending them to their rooms until they decide the McDonalds is not worth being hungry over.
Having worked with the public on numerous occasions and knowing about teir selective memory (and knowing how anal retentive lawers are) I would guess that the actual statement from Parexel was "There should be no serious side effects" to say otherwise is outright lying as the purpose of the TEST is to see what's going to happen. Promises to the contrary were probably not made, but people seem to not understand the english language these days. 6-8 weeks does not mean call us up in 6 weeks demanding to know where your stuff is.
You missed the point. Nothing the UN generates, resolution recomendation or otherwise is binding. It's a suggestion at best, only capable of being enforced when seperate countries band together to impose their will on another sovergen nation. The UN does not carry the wieght of law because it does not have the force to enforce those resolutions and laws.
Actualy, I have and do work with the public on a regular basis, and I've found that setting a firm line as to where you will allow customers to go is the best way to deal with them. I've had more than my share of customers rant a rave, and when it gets to the point where the ranting and raving is a disruption to the store, every single one of them has been kicked out of the store. And instead of the reaction of other customers being disgust at me, it's disgust at the customer who was acting like a child and unable to discuss a disagreeable situation like a reasonable adult.
America was built on civil disobedience. The forefathers designed the jury system as protection against unjust laws and unjust application of law. Put down the xbox and open a book.
There is nothing unjust about me as a business owner telling you to leave my property, nor is there anything unjust about arresting you if you return after I have told you that you are not welcome back in my store. The key point that you missed is that I will tresspass you first, meaning I will tell you to leave my store, and that you are no longer allowed to be on my property. This gives you the perfectly legal opportunity to collect your belongings and leave the premise. Shoudl you refuse or return you are then in violation of tresspass laws and you can and will legaly be arrested.
How does making a big public display hurt my cause? Wouldn't that actually work in my favor?
Clearly you've never been in a store where a customer is making a public display.
Hey, Everybody look at me I'm being arrested because I refuse to show ID when buying peaches. I think that might actually get a few people to question the current situation. Do you think I would stop after being arrested? I'm thinking picketing your business and drawing more attention to the situation would be the logical next step. Hell, I could be back at your store the same fucking day with a sign in hand.
Except you aren't being arrested for refusing to show ID. In this case you are lying which also does not help your cause. You have every right not to show ID, you just can't buy my peaches. If you are being arrested it's because A) you have already made a public scene, B) you've already been told by me that you are no longer welcome in my store and C) you have refused to leave or you have returned despite being told you are not allowed in my store.
So being required to show ID to buy food is ok with you? Could you enlighten me as to why I should be required to show ID to buy peaches?
Because they're my peaches, not yours. If I want you to show ID for every purchase I can. If you don't want to, you can leave. Simple.
Pfft. strawman argument. A credit card is not ID and the store will accept either cash or a credit card. Paying with a credit card is NOT the same as being REQUIRED to show ID.
You missed the point, I can pull all the identifying information I need about you from your credit card if I wanted to. So you are not saving any privacy violations here, leaving your last argument the simple principle of not wanting to show ID for a food purchase, which is f course your right. But it's my right to ask for ID and refuse a sale when you won't provide it.
And you're a fool for believing one man can't make a difference.
One man can make a difference, but one man can not make a difference on his own. It requires getting others together to make a concentrated effort to make a difference. That is, you will leave and not buy peaches and picket and do what ever but you don't matter. Now if you generate enough good will to your cause such that I see either a noticeable decline in business or a noticeable upswing in bad press you may cause me to change my policies, not because you matter, I don't care about you, but because my customer base as a whole matters.
I would love to live on the beach as well. As it stands, I live in a relatively cheap suburb of a major US city. $5.15 a hour doesn't cut it here. Neither does the $9 per hour you cited previously. That certainly does not stop companies near here and downtown from charging $5.15 or less, in the case of illegal workers. The companies don't care if they're not paying enough for their workers to actually live.
And yet clearly these workers are living, as they are returning to work each day. Furthermore, the fact that they are hiring illegals is evidence that the minimum wage is hurting the comunity was otherwise employable legal workers are being turned away because the business is unable to pay them less than the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage will give the businesses more incentive to hire illegal workers, and they'll still be paid minimum wage. At a certain point, you will find it will start to generate incentive to pay legal workers less than minimum wage but do it under the table benefiting these legal workers (because they don't pay taxes) and benefiting the company (keeping costs down).
Anyone working minimum wage for longer than a year is either A) working at that wage by choice or B) too lazy to get another job or raise. If you've never worked a minimum wage job before give it a try and see how bad you have to perform to NOT get a raise within a year.
People can not "mange" what they do not have.
They have the money plenty, they're just wasting it. But if you want them to have more money, try reducing the minimum wage, which will drive costs down which will in turn drive prices down which will generate more spending power for people making small amounts of money.
Binding UN sanctions? What are those?
Dictating to others what legal contracts they can enter into is not a sign of democracy.
Or conversely if we would like to play with fun hot button issues:
The nice thing about living in a democracy is that the people decide what rights to give every one and that's what marrige is.
Or how about
The nice thing about living in a democracy is that the people decide what privacy people should have, and that's what the government is doing when they spy on you.
Why should you be able to tell me that I can not legaly work for less than $5.15 / hour? Who are you to prevent me from doing so? What right do you have to dictate to me a private citizen what wage I shall work for?
Conversely, maybe you shouldn't live somewhere where you can't afford the cost of living. I would love to live on the beach, but I can't afford to live there on the wages I can earn, therefore I don't live on the beach. Perhaps we should just eliminate the minimum wage all together and actualy let the market for each area determine the minimum wage. For example, where I do live, while minimum wage is $5.15, no one actualy makes that. Unskilled labor STARTS at $7/hr here with raises in a few months after that assuming you were a good worker. By setting arbitrary price floors, you simply raise the cost of living, drive the marginal cost of not working for minimum wage up, increase the likely hood of illegal wage practices and screw more people over.
Take for example company A which has 5 workers working for $5 / hour and they work 5 hour days. Company A has the capacity to hire a new employee, Joe Poor who is willing a capable of working for $5 an hour, thus bettering his life. Now, imagine that the government in it's infinite wisdom decides to raise the minimum wage to $6 / hour. Now every employee is making an additional $5 / day and totaling out to the price of a new employee so that when Joe Poor comes looking for a job, even though he is WILLING to work at $5 an hour to get it, he can't. He is without a job because costs for labor went up, and therefore demand has gone down.
Sure, there is no guarantee that company A would have hired Joe Poor, but by raising the minimum wage by just one dollar, we have insured that it is impossible for him to be hired.
And this ignores the increased costs in terms of taxes and cuts into profit (thus requiring a rise in sale prices) that company A must incure to comply with the new wage.
In the end, minimum wage is not the answer, teaching people to mange their money and their life responsibly is.
And when you do that, I will tresspass you from my property. And when you come back I will have you arrested. Here's the trick to things. They're my peaches, my store, my ass on the line etc. If you don't want to shop here fine. But if you make a big public display about it not only will you hurt your cause, but you will be kicked out of my store because I have a business to run and entertaining your diatrabes about the injustice of showing a piece of plastic to me (especialy because I KNOW you're paying with a credit card which has more information about you than you could ever imagine attached to it) is not part of my business. Sure I'll lose your business but you know what? You don't matter.
In other words, the liberal air fesheners in the bullshit tanks stopped working. Politicians are full of shit, what's happening now is the liberals have fucked the public's ass raw, and the conservatives are promising to use lube with aloe vera
And you're wrong about anonymity, too. Larger cities, the prerequisite of anonymity, did exist even in the old ages. In 50 B.C. for example, Rome had at least 450,000 inhabitants (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rome#Roman _Empire), and 400 years before that Athens had about 300,000 inhabitants (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Athens#Ori gins_and_setting).
Ask anyone who grew up in NYC years back about everyone in the nieghborhood knowing you. Just because the city at large didn't doesn't mean the local populace didn't.
100 years ago, Alice could meet with Bob, walk into some field, and have a conversation that none could overhear. That is called privacy, and it did exist.
Unless someone happened to be in the same field that they did.
Today, Alice cannot have a conversation with Bob that couldn't be overheard, nowhere.
Sure they can, it's just not as easy.
Not only they can, but they do.
100 years ago, it was hard work for an investigator to collect and correlate all this information. It did occur, but it was expensive to breach the privacy of a person. This ensured that it was done only for relatively few suspects.
Today, the privacy of the entire populance is breached on a regular basis.
100 years ago, if you were falsely accused of a crime and it was a he said she said case, it was hard work to defend your innocence. Today, because of massive data mining all over, an accused rape suspect can prove that he could only have been in contact with the accuser for 10 minutes total, and during that time he was calling his girlfriend and a cab. Information is a double edged sword and has as many good uses as bad. Provided you have full access to your data, you should have little to fear. Furthermore, your point is self defeating as my statement was that privacy didn't exist. Just because it was harder to get the information doesn't mean the information wasn't readily availible.
Last time I checked my credit card bills, it was my money all right. It was just tunnelled through their network.
Then clearly you misunderstand what a credit card is. Allow me to fill you in. A credit card is a revolving line of credit. That is, it is someone allowing you to borrow X ammount of THEIR money to spend as you see fit. You repay the loan with your money. In otherwords, the only thing that's your money is the money spent on paying back the loan. Or to put it another way, the credit card people bought the product with their money and allowed you to have the product in exchange for your money.
A load of crap. So because the president was POPULAR and the politicians didn't want to LOOK bad, they voted to impliment a LAW that they didn't even READ? Excuse me but fuck no, that is entirely unacceptable. As a law maker their job is to protect the interests of their constituents. How does passing laws that they have no clue what they even mean or say protect our interests. Every single congress person that voted (or has ever voted) yes without reading the bill in question is guilty of treason.
Furthermore, your story doesn't hold water given that when renewal time came arround the voting still went yes (and sure as hell wasn't split along party lines. The democrats and the republicans are both out to screw you, it's just a matter of which orafice.
Believing any of this "We can't be heard, we didn't have time to read, it was forced down our throats!" bullshit is just plain stupid. If they really meant it, they would stand up and fight for rights, not back down and play dead.
The point he's trying to get across to you is the vast majority of people who work minimum wage, are not in a position where they need to support themselves or anyone else. Seriously, try an experiment. Go on a job hunt, and count how many jobs actualy pay minimum wage. Then ask yourself how many of the people working those jobs have to support themselves?
It's worth noting that $9/ hour is a certainly a liveable wage for as much as two people. The problem with minimum wage is not that it isn't enough for people, but that people have no clue how to manage their money. I hear people all the time talk about how much their food costs them. When I was making that little amount of money I ate for about $200 - $250 / month and that was eating well. Chicken or beef every dinner, with sides and more. I also fed another person on that money. It takes time yes. It takes work, yes. It takes managing your money too. I managed to get a steak every once in a while, but you don't get to get steak 4 times a week. You can't have soda or milk every day. You can't have alcohol etc etc etc. But if you learn to manage your money, $9 is a liveable wage.
Actualy, it does give him the right to bleed them with a minimum wage. You don't have to work for him. No one does. And companies that can't find workers either up their pay or go out of business. You have no right to dictate to him how he can pay his employees as long as the employees have agreed to that pay.
Then you should not trust them if you know they are threacherous. Expecting privacy from people you can't trust is like expecting honesty from a con man. Privacy, like anything else worth having, has a cost. It's not going to be easy to keep everything perfectly private, but that is the price you pay if you want to be cut off from the system.
ps, is it ironic that the bot filter word for this post is "hostage"?
Feeding the troll but is there something flawed with his reasoning or are you just attacking him because you think you're cooler because you don't believe in a god?
With the right ammount of data, any convoluted collection of data can be disproved. In your senario, since we have his original post, we can show that your example is made up and untrue. The trick is, we need access to all the same data you have. For a modern and real life example of data mining protecting you from a concocted story, see the recent Duke University rape case.
The flip side to that is if it's your god given right, then what does it matter if other people know? Just look at them and say "It's my right".