I"m curious about the part that the FL state legislature approved the change, and that even if the Gov signs it into law...they have to also get approval from the US Congress to enact this?
WFT do they have to get US approval for a state law?
Exactly what interstate commerce is affected here with this?
minimum wage & employment laws. People died for the 40 hour work week. The 'gig' economy chips away at those protections with a pickaxe. Also, what good does it do to tax them if the money goes right out the door in low income benefits? I'm not saying we pull the benefits, I'm saying we don't let them pay like crap.
People should have a choice of whether they want to be a W2 employee or a 1099 contractor.
Are you against the individual having a say in their mode of employment, or way to pick up side money?
A smart person can do VERY well as a 1099 contractor, but it is up to that person to have the marketable skill, and seek jobs they can negotiate the bill rate with....Uber offers "a" choice that some people figure is worth their time.
And...not EVERY job is one that you make your living and support your family with. A job should pay what it is worth, and then YOU have the choice whether it suits your or not.
It sounds like you don't want to give the individual freedom to make these choices, that the govt should make it for them?
If public transit can't support itself it deserves to fail? So screw the poor people when fares get unaffordable and screw the poor people when the service goes away.
Err....and where is it written that anyone has to be their brothers' keepers?
What exactly obligates me to support or at least subsidize someone for their bad choices or bad luck?
I mean, I don't mind giving to charity or helping people voluntarily...I do, but I don't see that anyone should be forced to do so, certainly not under threat by our own governmental bodies.
You're right. The laws haven't kept up with technology. So companies should be allowed to flagrantly violate the laws?
Rather than impose laws and fees on the new model that is working, why not LIFT the laws and fees on regular taxis, and allow them to compete and see who wins?
Instead of dragging down a model that seems to be working and is superior....why not allow the others to build themselves UP?
I donÃ(TM)t understand the hostility towards Uber. The times I have used the service I have had a ride within minutes to where I want to go for a fair price. That is something I definitely cannot say for traditional taxi services. Never once did the driver say he was being forced to work against his will.
Yep, and the service is door-to-door, and you're not stuck waiting on a bus, or riding one sitting to some smelly bum.
Face it...Uber/Lyft are becoming the new form of public transportation, it just doesn't happen to be under control of the govt, and nor are they filling their coffers from it.
Are you suggesting all guns that shot that same round have the same muzzle velocity, the same magazine capacity, and the same accuracy at range?
Given they have pretty much the same barrel length and quality (which varies among ARs themselves, they are VERY customizable, there is no true standard)....then yes, same round, same results.
And most any of the weapons that fire semi-auto for those rounds, can often have variable sized magazines.
The standard size for a lot of these is 30 rounds.
Again...30 is standard that comes with most ARs and a lot of other rifles of this type, it is not a special buy you have to do to get "high capacity"...30 rounds is generally the standard that comes with them in the free states.
What happens when you run off the people who work the lower paying jobs? If no one below a certain amount of pay can live there, then you lose all your restaurant workers, sanitation, etc. Most people aren't going to ride the bus for an hour to work for $10/hr. They will just find another job.
Well, I guess if a normal, non-overregulated system worked...those living with high rents would get tired of not having place to go to, since there wouldn't be any low pay workers..and start moving out.
Then, rents would go down, more low pay people would move back, and get jobs...and the cycle would keep rolling.
The system tries to get to equilibrium, and you'd see swings, sure like now, but in the long run, things will balance themselves out.
While I agree we are in some places we don't really have business being....if we were to pull our military from all over the world, all the other allies we foot the bill for protecting, would have a really hard time.
You'd have to likely drop your state sponsored medical and other social give outs...and, risk being targeted.
Using Amazon and having to wait for shipping/deal with mis-delivered stuff is punishment in itself. I'm not a hermit, I prefer brick-n-mortar when possible.
Hmm...I've had pretty much nothing but GREAT experiences with Amazon.
I find what I want, it gets shipped to me in 2 days and prices are usually better than I find locally.
And even with amazon charging sales tax....if you find a 3rd party on Amazon selling it, you usually get same shipping and no charge of sales tax which is nice.
Before Amazon started collecting sales tax, it was REALLY a great deal, especially on large ticket items.
It would make more sense if the government just picked up the price of a Prime membership for anyone at or below the poverty line.
/me thumbs through his copy of the US Constitution, looking for the "right to Amazon Prime assistance"....and the enumerated responsibilities of the Feds to cover this....hmmm
No, Americans do NOT need assault rifles. Or any form of fully automatic weapon. Semi-automatics even are debatable.
I think before you argue about guns (are you even a US citizen?)...you need to educate yourself on the terms you are using.
In the US, you can NOT readily buy "assault weapons"...aka fully automatic weapons.
After the 1986 laws (i.e. Hughes amendment), no citizen can own a fully automatic machine gun made prior to 1986. If you do want one, you have to go through a long background check and pay a tax stamp....and you also better have lots of $$$ if you want to buy one of the limited supply of them left from collectors.
I think a decent one starts about $30K?
If you are referring to the common AR-15, it is not truly an assault weapon, as that it is only a semi-automatic rifle, nothing more. An AR-15 is no more or less deadly than say, a Ruger mini-14 which shoots the same round. The AR-15 just is usually black and looks scarier.
The 556 or 223 rounds an AR shoots commonly, is basically a glorified.22 caliber round.
There are other guns that don't look as 'scary', but do shoot MUCH more powerful rounds, and are just as easily procured.
Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but please be a bit more educated about your terms and what you rant about.
there is little sporting use for pistols that couldn't be replicated without the requirement for an actual projectile, and rifles have legimate hunting purposes, and sporting use for rifles is harder to relipicate
While there are a number of sporting uses for guns, this is NOT the only reason for having them.
Self defense is a strong one, and everyone has the right to defend themselves and their homes.
But the US's founders also wanted the citizens to have weapons, to protect them from tyranny of the government. They had just fought to be free from an oppressive government, and they knew it could happen again here with our own government.
A well armed citizenry is a check against our own government becoming oppressive.
Look at history how many times after a government disarmed its populace, that not long after, it became a dictatorship and there was massive bloodshed.
It happened before, it could easily happen again.
And frankly, if the worst ever happens and the power grid in the US goes down for a prolonged period of time....you'd better be well armed. You'll stand a better chance of surviving.
I suppose we could also not abandon a large chunk of our population to economic desolation, but, well, that costs money. And we're nothing if not cheapskates.
I guess I question who is this collective "we" you are referring to?
I mean, in the US at least....we are (or were) a country made up of individualists, where YOU are responsible for your own destiny. It isn't up to the collective "we" to make sure you have a job and lifestyle you want.
I don't have a problem with a safety net for the elderly or infirmed, but other than that, the state is not responsible for your well being.
The tools are out there to use to pursue happiness and a satisfactory life, but the efforts, details and decisions are purely your own....as are the consequences of your actions (or inactions).
...while America grows canola when it should be growing more grain.
Err...I don't think the US has any sort of problems with shortages of growing grains. We grow too much as it is.
We need to be growing more diverse vegetables, more green leafy stuff....more nutritionally dense foods for the populace, and less grain and corn for worthless junk foods production.
Well, I've never bought a tune from ITunes..I rip my CD's.
So, if iTunes goes away....and I wouldn't mind a better interface, but will there be anything left on MacOS that allows me to catalog, rip and manage MY music local?
I don't stream much really...occasionally I'll plug the phone into the car for Amazon Prime music which comes "free" with my Prime subscription, but I don't ever see myself paying for an independent streaming only product from anyone.
If I find something I like, I buy it....in CD which is generally the format with most fidelity which I rip to FLAC for play on my high quality living room stereo...and mp3's for the poorer listening environments (car, gym, etc).
While I'd like a better UI that current iTunes (man, who is in charge there, it HAS become less and less intuitive to use)....I don't want to see this functionality go away for good.
Even if employers just hand the money over as salary, the point remains, taxes + health insurance + copays in the U.S. are more expensive than taxes in Europe (which include better health insurance than you can buy in the U.S.).
It also remains irrational to demand that the situation not change in the U.S.
All I know is that it worked pretty well without super inflated costs just a few decades back, before the bean counters took charge.
Insurance should be nothing more than what used to be termed "major medical" for emergencies (i.e. hit by a bus or heart attack, etc)....and routine care saved for and paid for by the individual, just like you save for and pay utilities....
Again, then costs would come back down and responsibility back with the individual person.
The medicaid safety net would still be there for the truly poor and invalid.
No need for the hugely inefficient federal and then state bureaucracies to get involved and increase cost and inefficiency.
I do not believe nor trust the Federal govt to make my health decisions, nor pay for them.
don't forget that employers paying the insurance premiums counts too since they count that as part of the cost of employing you)
Well, that's one problem there, the employers should NOT be in the business of providing healthcare coverage to employees. This is a relatively 'new' thing....years back when competing for employees employers started using this as enticement for prospective employees, and it some how turned into the 'norm'.
Let the employees get that money as more salary and allow them more freedom for HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) which allow you to sock this money away pre-tax, and unlike FSA's...it isn't use it or lose it annually.
Then, folks could shop around with their medical $$'s...and buy insurance that suited their needs pre-tax.
And this would cut out yet one more middle man, the employer.
OK, while I have reservations about the Feds sending up drones and using AI to scan footage for the US public, I'm not so much having a problem with military functions IF, it is legislated that these can NOT be used over US airspace on the general public.
But to a more broad topic, it seems that the majority of the Google workforce is against helping our military?
Why would US citizen be against helping our military which in turn keeps us safe?
Slashdot Mirror
WFT do they have to get US approval for a state law?
Exactly what interstate commerce is affected here with this?
An overwhelming need for mass transit just really isn't there in the US for most place in the US.
People should have a choice of whether they want to be a W2 employee or a 1099 contractor.
Are you against the individual having a say in their mode of employment, or way to pick up side money?
A smart person can do VERY well as a 1099 contractor, but it is up to that person to have the marketable skill, and seek jobs they can negotiate the bill rate with....Uber offers "a" choice that some people figure is worth their time.
And...not EVERY job is one that you make your living and support your family with. A job should pay what it is worth, and then YOU have the choice whether it suits your or not.
It sounds like you don't want to give the individual freedom to make these choices, that the govt should make it for them?
Err....and where is it written that anyone has to be their brothers' keepers?
What exactly obligates me to support or at least subsidize someone for their bad choices or bad luck?
I mean, I don't mind giving to charity or helping people voluntarily...I do, but I don't see that anyone should be forced to do so, certainly not under threat by our own governmental bodies.
Rather than impose laws and fees on the new model that is working, why not LIFT the laws and fees on regular taxis, and allow them to compete and see who wins?
Instead of dragging down a model that seems to be working and is superior....why not allow the others to build themselves UP?
That's a win for everyone.
Yep, and the service is door-to-door, and you're not stuck waiting on a bus, or riding one sitting to some smelly bum.
Face it...Uber/Lyft are becoming the new form of public transportation, it just doesn't happen to be under control of the govt, and nor are they filling their coffers from it.
Given they have pretty much the same barrel length and quality (which varies among ARs themselves, they are VERY customizable, there is no true standard)....then yes, same round, same results.
And most any of the weapons that fire semi-auto for those rounds, can often have variable sized magazines.
The standard size for a lot of these is 30 rounds.
Again...30 is standard that comes with most ARs and a lot of other rifles of this type, it is not a special buy you have to do to get "high capacity"...30 rounds is generally the standard that comes with them in the free states.
So...you're saying we should scale all choices to benefit the lowest common denominator in this country?
Well, I guess if a normal, non-overregulated system worked...those living with high rents would get tired of not having place to go to, since there wouldn't be any low pay workers..and start moving out.
Then, rents would go down, more low pay people would move back, and get jobs...and the cycle would keep rolling.
The system tries to get to equilibrium, and you'd see swings, sure like now, but in the long run, things will balance themselves out.
While I agree we are in some places we don't really have business being....if we were to pull our military from all over the world, all the other allies we foot the bill for protecting, would have a really hard time.
You'd have to likely drop your state sponsored medical and other social give outs...and, risk being targeted.
Hmm...I've had pretty much nothing but GREAT experiences with Amazon.
I find what I want, it gets shipped to me in 2 days and prices are usually better than I find locally.
And even with amazon charging sales tax....if you find a 3rd party on Amazon selling it, you usually get same shipping and no charge of sales tax which is nice.
Before Amazon started collecting sales tax, it was REALLY a great deal, especially on large ticket items.
I think before you argue about guns (are you even a US citizen?)...you need to educate yourself on the terms you are using.
In the US, you can NOT readily buy "assault weapons"...aka fully automatic weapons.
After the 1986 laws (i.e. Hughes amendment), no citizen can own a fully automatic machine gun made prior to 1986. If you do want one, you have to go through a long background check and pay a tax stamp....and you also better have lots of $$$ if you want to buy one of the limited supply of them left from collectors.
I think a decent one starts about $30K?
If you are referring to the common AR-15, it is not truly an assault weapon, as that it is only a semi-automatic rifle, nothing more. An AR-15 is no more or less deadly than say, a Ruger mini-14 which shoots the same round. The AR-15 just is usually black and looks scarier.
The 556 or 223 rounds an AR shoots commonly, is basically a glorified .22 caliber round.
There are other guns that don't look as 'scary', but do shoot MUCH more powerful rounds, and are just as easily procured.
Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but please be a bit more educated about your terms and what you rant about.
While there are a number of sporting uses for guns, this is NOT the only reason for having them.
Self defense is a strong one, and everyone has the right to defend themselves and their homes.
But the US's founders also wanted the citizens to have weapons, to protect them from tyranny of the government. They had just fought to be free from an oppressive government, and they knew it could happen again here with our own government.
A well armed citizenry is a check against our own government becoming oppressive.
Look at history how many times after a government disarmed its populace, that not long after, it became a dictatorship and there was massive bloodshed.
It happened before, it could easily happen again.
And frankly, if the worst ever happens and the power grid in the US goes down for a prolonged period of time....you'd better be well armed. You'll stand a better chance of surviving.
If you are not in and of the US, then you really don't have any say in the matter.
Don't you have problems in your own country that your attention would be better spent towards?
I guess I question who is this collective "we" you are referring to?
I mean, in the US at least....we are (or were) a country made up of individualists, where YOU are responsible for your own destiny. It isn't up to the collective "we" to make sure you have a job and lifestyle you want.
I don't have a problem with a safety net for the elderly or infirmed, but other than that, the state is not responsible for your well being.
The tools are out there to use to pursue happiness and a satisfactory life, but the efforts, details and decisions are purely your own....as are the consequences of your actions (or inactions).
Err...I don't think the US has any sort of problems with shortages of growing grains. We grow too much as it is.
We need to be growing more diverse vegetables, more green leafy stuff....more nutritionally dense foods for the populace, and less grain and corn for worthless junk foods production.
Just got a new car last year, and shouldn't be in it.
So, if iTunes goes away....and I wouldn't mind a better interface, but will there be anything left on MacOS that allows me to catalog, rip and manage MY music local?
I don't stream much really...occasionally I'll plug the phone into the car for Amazon Prime music which comes "free" with my Prime subscription, but I don't ever see myself paying for an independent streaming only product from anyone.
If I find something I like, I buy it....in CD which is generally the format with most fidelity which I rip to FLAC for play on my high quality living room stereo...and mp3's for the poorer listening environments (car, gym, etc).
While I'd like a better UI that current iTunes (man, who is in charge there, it HAS become less and less intuitive to use)....I don't want to see this functionality go away for good.
That's my point exactly....we should GO BACK to what was working in the 70's and before.
IT was a good system, and didn't require the federal and state governments to be involved with our healthcare.
If it worked then, why could it not work NOW?
Get rid of the HMO's and everything like them in place and go back to what it was before.
Ok...this is a new one on me.
When did they start this? What do I look for in my car for this?
More importantly, how can I disable this? I don't want my vehicle connect to any company, entity, or any other vehicle.
All I know is that it worked pretty well without super inflated costs just a few decades back, before the bean counters took charge.
Insurance should be nothing more than what used to be termed "major medical" for emergencies (i.e. hit by a bus or heart attack, etc)....and routine care saved for and paid for by the individual, just like you save for and pay utilities....
Again, then costs would come back down and responsibility back with the individual person.
The medicaid safety net would still be there for the truly poor and invalid.
No need for the hugely inefficient federal and then state bureaucracies to get involved and increase cost and inefficiency.
I do not believe nor trust the Federal govt to make my health decisions, nor pay for them.
Not mythical at all...I lived during the late 60-'s through the late 70's...maybe even somewhat into the 80's when this held true.
HMO's were the start of the evil that drove health care costs up....bean counters.
Well, that's one problem there, the employers should NOT be in the business of providing healthcare coverage to employees. This is a relatively 'new' thing....years back when competing for employees employers started using this as enticement for prospective employees, and it some how turned into the 'norm'.
Let the employees get that money as more salary and allow them more freedom for HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) which allow you to sock this money away pre-tax, and unlike FSA's...it isn't use it or lose it annually.
Then, folks could shop around with their medical $$'s...and buy insurance that suited their needs pre-tax.
And this would cut out yet one more middle man, the employer.
But to a more broad topic, it seems that the majority of the Google workforce is against helping our military?
Why would US citizen be against helping our military which in turn keeps us safe?