This whole "eye of the needle" being some kind of gate is bologna people have made up to circumvent the sharpness of the saying.
That may or may not be true. Personally, I don't understand why so many people try to justify that verse as a single verse, when there is no need to. After all, just tell the people who think that this verse says wealthy people can't go to heaven that they need to keep reading. Next two verses:
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Oops, I guess the Bible doesn't say that rich people can't go to heaven.
Innocent until proven guilty is just the slogan of the legal system. It does not have any bearing on the way the system actually works. Guilty until proven innocent is the way the system works.
No, I think most companies do a pretty good job of understanding the possible failure modes of their products under intended usage and account for that in their liability coverage and warranty periods. What they don't and can't account for is when people do something stupid that causes themselves harm and then sue anyway because they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and then win because other people also think that people should not have to be responsible for their own actions.
Image. Marketing. Associating with something which is successful or desireable. That's all you need to know.
So, did it work? Did the existence of the Apple and iphone logos on their stove make them want to buy an iphone?
I'll agree and add my two cents. These people already get paid crap-tons of money, and then they feel the need to have half a dozen or more awards shows a year to "recognize" them for what they were already paid for. We don't have awards shows for chefs, computer programmers, or sanitation workers. Why should we for actors?
I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day. Apparently the average celebrity receives $200,000 in donations and gifts a year. Given that there are literally thousands of celebrities, this means over $200 million is freely given to people who can afford to buy stuff on their own. Why not take all the money that is given to celebrities and give it to people who need it instead?
Of course the real problem is those men who, for some reason, are afraid to "make a commitment". I wonder why.
Recent poll I heard about on the John Tesh show says that men and women have switched sides on this issue. Of course, a lot of John Tesh's findings show an amazing inability to distinguish correlation from causation, so take that with a grain of salt.
A lesbian marrian has *two* ticking time bombs, either of whom could decide at any moment that her partner is repressing and stifling her and that she "needs her own space to find herself".
Not the lesbians I know. The ones I know leave me thinking "Isn't one of you supposed to be the woman?"
If I remember correctly, the couple that had one of the first same-sex marriages (I forget which state it was in) ended up filing for divorce a couple years later. I don't think the divorce procedure is any different.
I always thought it would be funny if they allowed same sex marriage and then when the people decided they wanted a divorce, the Judge would say "I'm sorry, but same sex divorce is not legal."
What we have here is data that shows that all cars are getting better in quality (including GM), and you're single data point that disagrees with the large data set.
But anecdotes are personal and very impactful to whomever they affect. Sure, 10,000 people have pushed this button and nothing bad happened, but you have pushed it twice and both times, a sword came out and stabbed you in the stomach. Well, guess what, you probably won't push it again despite what the statistics say. And yes, you will probably share your story with others, out of concern that others will get hurt. Meanwhile the other 10,000 people will probably also share their story that nothing bad happened. On the whole more people complain when something goes wrong than share a good anecdote when everything is good, but by sheer numbers, it will all work out.
Your experience is remarkably similar to mine. I started with a 1979 Ford Granada. It had less than 100k when I bought it, but it had problems. I had to replace shocks, battery, belts, wipers, and the alternator. Then, I had problems with the alternator sheering off the bolt that attached it to the engine. It sheered of two bolts, both were the right spec for that year and model. I ended up using baling wire attached to the frame to relieve some of the stress on the frame. It had innumerable other problems as well. I traded up to a 1980 Ford Fairmont. Not much better luck there.
I bought a 1988 Toyota MR-2. In the 6 years I owned it, I had to replace the muffler (lots of road salt up north). I upgraded to a 1990 Toyota Supra. It ended up with the dreaded and well known head gasket issue after about 6 years. Had I known then what I know now, I would have just replaced the head gasket myself, but back then it sounded scary. I've done 3 myself since then.
Bought a 1996 Lexus SC400. No problems,ever. The last nice looking sports coupe Lexus ever made. The most comfortable car I ever had.
1988 Mazda RX-7 Convertible. Over 150k miles. No problems.
1998 Toyota Supra Turbo. Bought new. No problames ever.
2000 GMC Safari. Bought new. Worked great while I was driving it, but then fell apart after about 6 years when my stepson started driving it. Had to replace head gasket and some tubes that had burned through, spark plugs and wires, etc.
2001 Lexus ES-300. Bought with 60k miles. No problems.
2009 Toyota Sienna. Bought new. No problems so far.
So in my experience, U.S. made cars have been much less reliable than Japanese cars.
Actually, it's not. Indexed to inflation, air travel is dramatically cheaper than it was even 30 years ago.
I'm sure that is true, in the 70s, air travel was the domain of the rich and not yet a standard mode of travel. However, in the 80s it became a commodity. I used to be able to travel round trip from Oklahoma City to Chicago for $100. Now it would cost me a minimum of $458, and of course they are hiding the luggage fees and other odds and ends. The final cost would be about $500. I doubt that we have had 400% inflation since 1989. My salary sure doesn't think we have. Although the price of gas is also about 4 times what it was back then.
Yes, that was what i was going to suggest. Travel is already expensive, and TSA has made it enough of a hassle, they will put themselves out of business, and have to branch out into some other areas. Some of these they have already started, like trains, buses and trucks, but before long you will probably have to have a "auto marshall" in every car and have to have a staff of three TSA agents manning a scanner between your garage door and your car.
I am not sure what past time you are talking about when public schools were doing fine or when taxes were lower. Current tax rates are the lowest they've been in decades
Most places do not fund schools by income tax. They usually are funded by property tax. Property taxes are higher than they have ever been, and not just because of property values. The underlying percentage of property tax itself has gone up. In the case of where I live, the percentage of property tax has doubled in the last 20 years, while the prices of them homes themselves have gone up by 5 times or more. So, the amount of money going to the school district is 10 times what it was 20 years ago. And yet now they are struggling, while they were not struggling back then. Teachers income has not gone up by 10 times. They are not building new buildings. Where is all this money going? In most cases, it is going to useless administrators and duplication/triplication of administrative positions. Some schools in my district have a principal for each grade level. Why? They have the same number of students they did when I went to school, and there was only one principal back then. It is all just waste and pork. They are robbing us blind in the name of "the children" and then squandering all the money on toys, administrative positions, political indoctrination, just about anything other than teaching the children.
This is the Burka argument, women should cover up or else men won't be able to control themselves from raping them.
Burka should look up rape statistics in Muslem countries. Of course, that is difficult since rape is even more underreported in repressive societies like these than in relatively progressive western societies.
Along with a healthy dose of "I like calling raAlong with a healthy dose of "I like calling rape victims retarded whores" and victim-blaming.
Classless he may be, but he is also correct. The idea that rapists are out for control or power is pop psychology BS that is purely designed to make victims feel better about themselves. Somehow, women feel better if they are told it was not about sex, but about power.
these hunters follow the Republican dogma of, "If you have nothing to hide..."these hunters follow the Republican dogma of, "If you have nothing to hide..."
How is that a Republican dogma? From what I can see it is the liberals that want to dig into my privacy.
Hawkin's Theory of Progress: "Progress does not consist of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong."
The rules, of course, must be agreed to beforehand. So perhaps this will teach people to read agreements before they sign them. This would be great if the next generation of people for instance would be:
Unwilling to hand over their private information for the chance to play cheezy games
Unwilling to agree to EULAs that restrict their ability to return buggy or useless software
Unwilling to sign a cell phone agreement that gives no rights to the consumer
Unwilling to sign completely one-sided employment agreements
etc.
And if you were a fit parent, you would make sure that your children do, indeed understand money.
And if you had read the rest of his post, you would have seen that his argument is that parents aren't to blame for every single problem their child has. You do the best you can to teach your child the proper way to live, but despite what popular society tells us, the ultimate person responsible for a person's behavior is that person themselves.
it's just a scheme to allow the rich folks kids to buy bad behaviour and keep the poor ones in their place. In other words an extension of the whole American Dream.
I really doubt that it is intended that way. What rich kid really wants to blow $5 in order to chew gum? And given that the school primarily is attended by low income students, I really doubt that any of them are going to throw away their money like that.
Now, it might be useful to have an exponential scale, if you are really concerned about rich students buying their right to chew gum. First offense, $5, next offense $25, next offense $625, next offense $390625. I doubt they'll try for five.
My kids go to public school, but we have hosted international students that have gone to local private schools. Many of them had these same types of rules, including the chewing gum rule. So this is not just one particular school run by rich people that does this. It is common practice for schools both public an private to not want to scrape gum off the bottom of desks. However, in the public schools, they are not allowed to discipline children anymore, whereas they are still allowed to in private schools.
The answer, never given explicitly, is always "more".
I disagree. i think the education system needs less money. Why? Because they were able to get by just fine when the tax rate was lower and the household income was lower. The fact that they are now struggling to get by is not an indication to me that they need more money, but rather that they are not allocating the money they have properly.
There are a number of things we can point to where education systems spend money that buys no additional educational benefit. My School district had zero paid administrators when I went to school there in the 1980s. Now, there are about 100. The school district has upgraded to "smartboards" which offer less educational value per dollar than a traditional board. They are requiring classes in politically indoctrinating classes such as "Environmental Sciences". They have multiple Principals per school. At least they haven't started handing out $500 web surfing/gaming platforms to the students in my district yet. I'm sure it's coming.
Maybe this is what AARP has been doing. They've been sending me invitations to join their organization for years, ever since I was in my 20's. Undoubtedly their data mining algorithms determined that I would one day reach retirement age, so they are doing everything they can to "capture" me now!
I, on the other hand, at age 41, have not been contacted by AARP. This probably means that their data mining algorithms have determined that I will NOT reach retirement age.
Track who buys what by Credit Card #.
That is a pretty shady area. There are some pretty strict laws about when and how credit card data is to be stored. I don't think brick and mortars are allowed to store CC#s at all. Then there is the matter of tying that information back to an address. Unless you are doing this online, or you willing gave them your address, then there should be no legal way for them to tie a credit card number to an address. Of course, maybe in this case they were using a Target credit card in which case they probably do have the address.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole "eye of the needle" being some kind of gate is bologna people have made up to circumvent the sharpness of the saying.
That may or may not be true. Personally, I don't understand why so many people try to justify that verse as a single verse, when there is no need to. After all, just tell the people who think that this verse says wealthy people can't go to heaven that they need to keep reading. Next two verses:
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Oops, I guess the Bible doesn't say that rich people can't go to heaven.
Innocent until proven guilty is just the slogan of the legal system. It does not have any bearing on the way the system actually works. Guilty until proven innocent is the way the system works.
No, I think most companies do a pretty good job of understanding the possible failure modes of their products under intended usage and account for that in their liability coverage and warranty periods. What they don't and can't account for is when people do something stupid that causes themselves harm and then sue anyway because they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and then win because other people also think that people should not have to be responsible for their own actions.
Image. Marketing. Associating with something which is successful or desireable. That's all you need to know.
So, did it work? Did the existence of the Apple and iphone logos on their stove make them want to buy an iphone?
I'll agree and add my two cents. These people already get paid crap-tons of money, and then they feel the need to have half a dozen or more awards shows a year to "recognize" them for what they were already paid for. We don't have awards shows for chefs, computer programmers, or sanitation workers. Why should we for actors?
I heard an interesting statistic on the radio the other day. Apparently the average celebrity receives $200,000 in donations and gifts a year. Given that there are literally thousands of celebrities, this means over $200 million is freely given to people who can afford to buy stuff on their own. Why not take all the money that is given to celebrities and give it to people who need it instead?
Actually it was only about 15 minutes in.
Of course the real problem is those men who, for some reason, are afraid to "make a commitment". I wonder why.
Recent poll I heard about on the John Tesh show says that men and women have switched sides on this issue. Of course, a lot of John Tesh's findings show an amazing inability to distinguish correlation from causation, so take that with a grain of salt.
A lesbian marrian has *two* ticking time bombs, either of whom could decide at any moment that her partner is repressing and stifling her and that she "needs her own space to find herself".
Not the lesbians I know. The ones I know leave me thinking "Isn't one of you supposed to be the woman?"
If I remember correctly, the couple that had one of the first same-sex marriages (I forget which state it was in) ended up filing for divorce a couple years later. I don't think the divorce procedure is any different.
I always thought it would be funny if they allowed same sex marriage and then when the people decided they wanted a divorce, the Judge would say "I'm sorry, but same sex divorce is not legal."
What we have here is data that shows that all cars are getting better in quality (including GM), and you're single data point that disagrees with the large data set.
But anecdotes are personal and very impactful to whomever they affect. Sure, 10,000 people have pushed this button and nothing bad happened, but you have pushed it twice and both times, a sword came out and stabbed you in the stomach. Well, guess what, you probably won't push it again despite what the statistics say. And yes, you will probably share your story with others, out of concern that others will get hurt. Meanwhile the other 10,000 people will probably also share their story that nothing bad happened. On the whole more people complain when something goes wrong than share a good anecdote when everything is good, but by sheer numbers, it will all work out.
Your experience is remarkably similar to mine. I started with a 1979 Ford Granada. It had less than 100k when I bought it, but it had problems. I had to replace shocks, battery, belts, wipers, and the alternator. Then, I had problems with the alternator sheering off the bolt that attached it to the engine. It sheered of two bolts, both were the right spec for that year and model. I ended up using baling wire attached to the frame to relieve some of the stress on the frame. It had innumerable other problems as well. I traded up to a 1980 Ford Fairmont. Not much better luck there.
I bought a 1988 Toyota MR-2. In the 6 years I owned it, I had to replace the muffler (lots of road salt up north). I upgraded to a 1990 Toyota Supra. It ended up with the dreaded and well known head gasket issue after about 6 years. Had I known then what I know now, I would have just replaced the head gasket myself, but back then it sounded scary. I've done 3 myself since then.
Bought a 1996 Lexus SC400. No problems,ever. The last nice looking sports coupe Lexus ever made. The most comfortable car I ever had.
1988 Mazda RX-7 Convertible. Over 150k miles. No problems.
1998 Toyota Supra Turbo. Bought new. No problames ever.
2000 GMC Safari. Bought new. Worked great while I was driving it, but then fell apart after about 6 years when my stepson started driving it. Had to replace head gasket and some tubes that had burned through, spark plugs and wires, etc.
2001 Lexus ES-300. Bought with 60k miles. No problems.
2009 Toyota Sienna. Bought new. No problems so far.
So in my experience, U.S. made cars have been much less reliable than Japanese cars.
Actually, it's not. Indexed to inflation, air travel is dramatically cheaper than it was even 30 years ago.
I'm sure that is true, in the 70s, air travel was the domain of the rich and not yet a standard mode of travel. However, in the 80s it became a commodity. I used to be able to travel round trip from Oklahoma City to Chicago for $100. Now it would cost me a minimum of $458, and of course they are hiding the luggage fees and other odds and ends. The final cost would be about $500. I doubt that we have had 400% inflation since 1989. My salary sure doesn't think we have. Although the price of gas is also about 4 times what it was back then.
Yes, that was what i was going to suggest. Travel is already expensive, and TSA has made it enough of a hassle, they will put themselves out of business, and have to branch out into some other areas. Some of these they have already started, like trains, buses and trucks, but before long you will probably have to have a "auto marshall" in every car and have to have a staff of three TSA agents manning a scanner between your garage door and your car.
I am not sure what past time you are talking about when public schools were doing fine or when taxes were lower. Current tax rates are the lowest they've been in decades
Most places do not fund schools by income tax. They usually are funded by property tax. Property taxes are higher than they have ever been, and not just because of property values. The underlying percentage of property tax itself has gone up. In the case of where I live, the percentage of property tax has doubled in the last 20 years, while the prices of them homes themselves have gone up by 5 times or more. So, the amount of money going to the school district is 10 times what it was 20 years ago. And yet now they are struggling, while they were not struggling back then. Teachers income has not gone up by 10 times. They are not building new buildings. Where is all this money going? In most cases, it is going to useless administrators and duplication/triplication of administrative positions. Some schools in my district have a principal for each grade level. Why? They have the same number of students they did when I went to school, and there was only one principal back then. It is all just waste and pork. They are robbing us blind in the name of "the children" and then squandering all the money on toys, administrative positions, political indoctrination, just about anything other than teaching the children.
This is the Burka argument, women should cover up or else men won't be able to control themselves from raping them.
Burka should look up rape statistics in Muslem countries. Of course, that is difficult since rape is even more underreported in repressive societies like these than in relatively progressive western societies.
Along with a healthy dose of "I like calling raAlong with a healthy dose of "I like calling rape victims retarded whores" and victim-blaming.
Classless he may be, but he is also correct. The idea that rapists are out for control or power is pop psychology BS that is purely designed to make victims feel better about themselves. Somehow, women feel better if they are told it was not about sex, but about power.
these hunters follow the Republican dogma of, "If you have nothing to hide..."these hunters follow the Republican dogma of, "If you have nothing to hide..."
How is that a Republican dogma? From what I can see it is the liberals that want to dig into my privacy.
Hawkin's Theory of Progress: "Progress does not consist of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right. It consists of replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong."
The rules, of course, must be agreed to beforehand. So perhaps this will teach people to read agreements before they sign them. This would be great if the next generation of people for instance would be:
Unwilling to hand over their private information for the chance to play cheezy games
Unwilling to agree to EULAs that restrict their ability to return buggy or useless software
Unwilling to sign a cell phone agreement that gives no rights to the consumer
Unwilling to sign completely one-sided employment agreements
etc.
And if you were a fit parent, you would make sure that your children do, indeed understand money.
And if you had read the rest of his post, you would have seen that his argument is that parents aren't to blame for every single problem their child has. You do the best you can to teach your child the proper way to live, but despite what popular society tells us, the ultimate person responsible for a person's behavior is that person themselves.
it's just a scheme to allow the rich folks kids to buy bad behaviour and keep the poor ones in their place. In other words an extension of the whole American Dream.
I really doubt that it is intended that way. What rich kid really wants to blow $5 in order to chew gum? And given that the school primarily is attended by low income students, I really doubt that any of them are going to throw away their money like that.
Now, it might be useful to have an exponential scale, if you are really concerned about rich students buying their right to chew gum. First offense, $5, next offense $25, next offense $625, next offense $390625. I doubt they'll try for five.
My kids go to public school, but we have hosted international students that have gone to local private schools. Many of them had these same types of rules, including the chewing gum rule. So this is not just one particular school run by rich people that does this. It is common practice for schools both public an private to not want to scrape gum off the bottom of desks. However, in the public schools, they are not allowed to discipline children anymore, whereas they are still allowed to in private schools.
The answer, never given explicitly, is always "more".
I disagree. i think the education system needs less money. Why? Because they were able to get by just fine when the tax rate was lower and the household income was lower. The fact that they are now struggling to get by is not an indication to me that they need more money, but rather that they are not allocating the money they have properly.
There are a number of things we can point to where education systems spend money that buys no additional educational benefit. My School district had zero paid administrators when I went to school there in the 1980s. Now, there are about 100. The school district has upgraded to "smartboards" which offer less educational value per dollar than a traditional board. They are requiring classes in politically indoctrinating classes such as "Environmental Sciences". They have multiple Principals per school. At least they haven't started handing out $500 web surfing/gaming platforms to the students in my district yet. I'm sure it's coming.
Maybe this is what AARP has been doing. They've been sending me invitations to join their organization for years, ever since I was in my 20's. Undoubtedly their data mining algorithms determined that I would one day reach retirement age, so they are doing everything they can to "capture" me now!
I, on the other hand, at age 41, have not been contacted by AARP. This probably means that their data mining algorithms have determined that I will NOT reach retirement age.
Track who buys what by Credit Card #.
That is a pretty shady area. There are some pretty strict laws about when and how credit card data is to be stored. I don't think brick and mortars are allowed to store CC#s at all. Then there is the matter of tying that information back to an address. Unless you are doing this online, or you willing gave them your address, then there should be no legal way for them to tie a credit card number to an address. Of course, maybe in this case they were using a Target credit card in which case they probably do have the address.