"going the extra mile" doesn't have to mean illegal slavery (as defined some places, obviously not where you are). That you'll sell your soul for a dollar doesn't mean we all should. If nobody sold out like you, someone would still have the job you think you had to sell out to get.
Get your head out of your ass. Nearly every manufacturer of everything has been sued for dangerous goods, especially those who make inherently dangerous things (cigarettes, cars, chainsaws, mowers). That you don't know this makes you a huge idiot. Fraud is common in business. They call it "advertising".
Just because we today find ourselves surrounded on all sides with inept incompetence, doesn't mean it's normal or desirable or acceptable.
That was my point. Why are you arguing like a jackass when you are agreeing with me? We are surrounded by dangerous and fraudulent companies, if we shut them all down tomorrow, who would be left? That you read something into that I didn't say does't mean it's true. You agree with the implication that we are surrounded by "bad" companies. So why all the hate?
The idiot OP didn't mention suing Jiffy Lube (or whoever), or holding them responsible, he just whined about it. Why aren't you whining to him, instead of me?
At the end of the day you can't crap on the other guy for choosing to do more for a company he loves working for or simply because he wants a big screen TV.
But you can. When the other guy will work for $0.50 per day, you will get your pay cut. He gets what he wants, and you lose.
The official stance is "you could have chosen to not go to the strip club, but once in, all your choices were illegal". The same thing has happened in some safety regulations, where the regulation was wrong. If you built your item safe, you broke the law (by breaking the regulation), but if you built it to the regulation, you broke the law by making an unsafe item. The only way to win, is to not play (so said the government when the companies tried to hide behind the regulation for selling an unsafe item). They could have made it safe and paid the fine for breaking the regulation, at least then they wouldn't have been sued.
I was smart. I got cash for being smart. Apparently dumb is too common to be a protected class. Though smart isn't either, as cops can't be smart.
So, imagine the way you felt when you saw others with "women in engineering" scholarships (the only holder of one I knew was a male - they have no rules against it, but encourage women, with NAACP, you must claim to be black, but there are no checks made to verify), now, apply that feeling to every day of your life. Getting picked out of a crowd for full rule enforcement when driving, applying for jobs. 10,000,000 little cuts is what keeps minorities down now, fewer lynchings, so the "mild" bigots don't see the problem. And that's the problem. The other problem is MADD. Organizations that "win" what they are after, then change. MADD was needed in the '80s when drunks were still killing in mass numbers, but now, MADD is an anti-alcohol group uninterested in safety, except as to exploit it to push Prohibition. Many fear the same from the NAACP and such. I'd rather wait until equality is achieved, then shut them down, than shut them down because we presume equality will be reached eventually.
Yes it does, and your chosen example proves it: Boy Scouts are now unisex
I can't find anything to support that. There are no female boy scouts. Though there are programs they do let girls in, they are not "scouting programs". When there is a female Eagle Scout, let us know. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... agrees with me. Next time, go edit Wikipedia first.
Who says? Was there a meeting where it was decided how many women there should be in STEM fields?
Says obviousness. Also the studies that showed that more women in the workplace get better results because woman have a different viewpoint, and diverse viewpoints lead to more successful outcomes. No really, they've proven more women creates more successes. But I'm sure the misogynists will assert it's all an anti-man conspiracy formed by the powerful femi-nazi activists.
Even if a greater proportion than among men don't want to be in them?
Yes.
And I say we just make sure that those women who want to go into IS and IT don't suffer discrimination, and stop trying to pressure everyone into being dissatisfied with anything other than equal numbers.
The assumption is that if there was no discrimination, the numbers would be closer to parity than 90/10 (or whatever they are). So you are working towards the same stated goal, only you are doing nothing to achieve it, and "they" are, and you are working to stop "them".
That makes me question your sincerity in being anti-discrimination.
Most of the laws are written so that the police must make the man leave.
For someone demanding others support their assertions, you don't include any support here. I've never seen a law written that way. I've seen laws that indicate "someone" must be removed, and the male cops on the scene generally assume the male to be the aggressor, and remove him, but I've not seen it coded into law anywhere, let alone "most' places that the male must be removed. Can you point to any? Or were you just making it up?
Slavery is illegal. If you are paid to be somewhere from 9 to 5, and you get no more pay for after hours work, the after hours work is slavery, demanded under threat of harm (loss of job). In some places, salary means set hours, and overtime is not allowed, as it is uncompensated. But compensated overtime is allowed, often with restrictions.
That's somewhere between a prisoner's dilemma and a tragedy of the commons. If you'd demanded triple pay, same as everyone else, you'd be where you are now, and you'd have gotten paid more getting there. But when one person "scabs" then they ruin it for everyone
Now that Obamacare IS the system and it IS the problem
So it is the system, even if nobody is using it?
The "best" solution would be lowering Medicare enrolement age to birth. It would require a re-work of some of the rules, but a single payer by the largest "insurance" group in the country would be better than current (and previous). Given the numbers I've seen, it'd be much cheaper and with better coverage.
Are those enrolled through the government portal only? Some I've seen do. That leaves out the people who signed up through a state portal. Seems the nay-sayers are as guilty of making up numbers as the people they are accusing of doing the same.
What about income levels for subsidies? If you are subsidized at $40k and gross $45k, but net $20k, do you get or not get a subsidy? Some of those sorts of questions are where there are issues with insurance and incorporation.
They will come down after the initial phase. The insurance companies had a chance to re-price all their plans. Being for-profit, they raised them as much as they thought practical. When the profit controls hit later, they'll be reduced.
With auto insurance in Texas, the profits are capped. State Farm would send me a check every year because they collected too much profit.
I'm not sure why everyone assumes ACA "required" higher premiums, rather than insurers raising prices because they could.
I've been in that situation before. When there's something that sets off a risk factor, you get banned. A few places have some super-high-cost plans that will take a person with no illnesses who was previously diagnosed with cancer (not my issue, but another one I ran across that guaranteed rejection). And no, being perfectly healthy with a recent cancer is essentially the same as havig cancer and being on your death bed, under the old insurance practices.
Where could one find those numbers? I'd like a citation, but not in the "[citation required] = I think you are lying" as it's usually used, but that I can't find good numbers on signups and payments. They are insanely biased, one way or another.
It's a shame we can't hear about how the plan is working without 10,000 comments on what's wrong with the plan. There's a business saying that boils down to "it's better to execute a bad plan well, than have the best possible plan and never execute it." So it's done. Let's just do it. When it's finally done, then we can look to do improvements. If we work on it until everyone likes it, we'll never get it done.
I understand speed matters more than shape, but there does appear to be aerodynamic considerations for ballistics as well. Spire/Spitzer and a boat-tail seems a common requirement. And the weight can be increased as needed (And as technology allows) with nothing that prevents a weight approaching the 15" guns in a smaller, more aerodynamic shape (of course, to be both smaller and heavier would require special materials.
Also I note that the usual shape for bullets is not a ball, as they started out, but has evolved to a more aerodynamic shape. I'm sure the guys spending billions working on it have considered it.
If you can't run your business in such a way that you don't need to resort to fraud or endanger your customers' lives, then you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Well then what businesses are left, after applying your silly rules?
Tolerances causes more cost than you think, and documentation around military contract is generally at least half the cost of anything. It's not the contractors taking the piss (what, are you in OZ or UK?), but the government being stupid in supporting the military industrial complex.
Apart from some guys who get a lot of profit selling books claiming HFT is bad, no one actually makes very much on HFT.
Then why do they have so much spare cash they are spending millions of dollars on faster networks?
The economy is not a zero-sum game,
The economy isn't a zero sum game, but a single trade is, in that the more someone else makes from it, the less you do, and if you know the sell price when you buy, you can define it in terms that it is a zero sum game. I am not trying to hurt the other guy to make my position better, but HFTs do do that.
Slashdot Mirror
"going the extra mile" doesn't have to mean illegal slavery (as defined some places, obviously not where you are). That you'll sell your soul for a dollar doesn't mean we all should. If nobody sold out like you, someone would still have the job you think you had to sell out to get.
Just because we today find ourselves surrounded on all sides with inept incompetence, doesn't mean it's normal or desirable or acceptable.
That was my point. Why are you arguing like a jackass when you are agreeing with me? We are surrounded by dangerous and fraudulent companies, if we shut them all down tomorrow, who would be left? That you read something into that I didn't say does't mean it's true. You agree with the implication that we are surrounded by "bad" companies. So why all the hate?
The idiot OP didn't mention suing Jiffy Lube (or whoever), or holding them responsible, he just whined about it. Why aren't you whining to him, instead of me?
At the end of the day you can't crap on the other guy for choosing to do more for a company he loves working for or simply because he wants a big screen TV.
But you can. When the other guy will work for $0.50 per day, you will get your pay cut. He gets what he wants, and you lose.
And nobody is allowed to point out the places that do what the US claims is impossible, and it works better than the US system.
The official stance is "you could have chosen to not go to the strip club, but once in, all your choices were illegal". The same thing has happened in some safety regulations, where the regulation was wrong. If you built your item safe, you broke the law (by breaking the regulation), but if you built it to the regulation, you broke the law by making an unsafe item. The only way to win, is to not play (so said the government when the companies tried to hide behind the regulation for selling an unsafe item). They could have made it safe and paid the fine for breaking the regulation, at least then they wouldn't have been sued.
I was smart. I got cash for being smart. Apparently dumb is too common to be a protected class. Though smart isn't either, as cops can't be smart.
So, imagine the way you felt when you saw others with "women in engineering" scholarships (the only holder of one I knew was a male - they have no rules against it, but encourage women, with NAACP, you must claim to be black, but there are no checks made to verify), now, apply that feeling to every day of your life. Getting picked out of a crowd for full rule enforcement when driving, applying for jobs. 10,000,000 little cuts is what keeps minorities down now, fewer lynchings, so the "mild" bigots don't see the problem. And that's the problem. The other problem is MADD. Organizations that "win" what they are after, then change. MADD was needed in the '80s when drunks were still killing in mass numbers, but now, MADD is an anti-alcohol group uninterested in safety, except as to exploit it to push Prohibition. Many fear the same from the NAACP and such. I'd rather wait until equality is achieved, then shut them down, than shut them down because we presume equality will be reached eventually.
Yes it does, and your chosen example proves it: Boy Scouts are now unisex
I can't find anything to support that. There are no female boy scouts. Though there are programs they do let girls in, they are not "scouting programs". When there is a female Eagle Scout, let us know. Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... agrees with me. Next time, go edit Wikipedia first.
Who says? Was there a meeting where it was decided how many women there should be in STEM fields?
Says obviousness. Also the studies that showed that more women in the workplace get better results because woman have a different viewpoint, and diverse viewpoints lead to more successful outcomes. No really, they've proven more women creates more successes. But I'm sure the misogynists will assert it's all an anti-man conspiracy formed by the powerful femi-nazi activists.
Even if a greater proportion than among men don't want to be in them?
Yes.
And I say we just make sure that those women who want to go into IS and IT don't suffer discrimination, and stop trying to pressure everyone into being dissatisfied with anything other than equal numbers.
The assumption is that if there was no discrimination, the numbers would be closer to parity than 90/10 (or whatever they are). So you are working towards the same stated goal, only you are doing nothing to achieve it, and "they" are, and you are working to stop "them".
That makes me question your sincerity in being anti-discrimination.
Most of the laws are written so that the police must make the man leave.
For someone demanding others support their assertions, you don't include any support here. I've never seen a law written that way. I've seen laws that indicate "someone" must be removed, and the male cops on the scene generally assume the male to be the aggressor, and remove him, but I've not seen it coded into law anywhere, let alone "most' places that the male must be removed. Can you point to any? Or were you just making it up?
Slavery is illegal. If you are paid to be somewhere from 9 to 5, and you get no more pay for after hours work, the after hours work is slavery, demanded under threat of harm (loss of job). In some places, salary means set hours, and overtime is not allowed, as it is uncompensated. But compensated overtime is allowed, often with restrictions.
That's somewhere between a prisoner's dilemma and a tragedy of the commons. If you'd demanded triple pay, same as everyone else, you'd be where you are now, and you'd have gotten paid more getting there. But when one person "scabs" then they ruin it for everyone
Now that Obamacare IS the system and it IS the problem
So it is the system, even if nobody is using it?
The "best" solution would be lowering Medicare enrolement age to birth. It would require a re-work of some of the rules, but a single payer by the largest "insurance" group in the country would be better than current (and previous). Given the numbers I've seen, it'd be much cheaper and with better coverage.
Are those enrolled through the government portal only? Some I've seen do. That leaves out the people who signed up through a state portal. Seems the nay-sayers are as guilty of making up numbers as the people they are accusing of doing the same.
What about income levels for subsidies? If you are subsidized at $40k and gross $45k, but net $20k, do you get or not get a subsidy? Some of those sorts of questions are where there are issues with insurance and incorporation.
They will come down after the initial phase. The insurance companies had a chance to re-price all their plans. Being for-profit, they raised them as much as they thought practical. When the profit controls hit later, they'll be reduced.
With auto insurance in Texas, the profits are capped. State Farm would send me a check every year because they collected too much profit.
I'm not sure why everyone assumes ACA "required" higher premiums, rather than insurers raising prices because they could.
I've been in that situation before. When there's something that sets off a risk factor, you get banned. A few places have some super-high-cost plans that will take a person with no illnesses who was previously diagnosed with cancer (not my issue, but another one I ran across that guaranteed rejection). And no, being perfectly healthy with a recent cancer is essentially the same as havig cancer and being on your death bed, under the old insurance practices.
Where could one find those numbers? I'd like a citation, but not in the "[citation required] = I think you are lying" as it's usually used, but that I can't find good numbers on signups and payments. They are insanely biased, one way or another.
It's a shame we can't hear about how the plan is working without 10,000 comments on what's wrong with the plan. There's a business saying that boils down to "it's better to execute a bad plan well, than have the best possible plan and never execute it." So it's done. Let's just do it. When it's finally done, then we can look to do improvements. If we work on it until everyone likes it, we'll never get it done.
Anyone that thought the Iraq War was a good idea, should not be described as "pretty sharp".
Academi (AKA Blackwater Mercenaries) made a mint, as did Haliburton and a number of others. So how was it not a good idea for them?
Making the rich richer is the point of government, right? That's what Reagan said in the '80s, and they've worked towards ever since.
I understand speed matters more than shape, but there does appear to be aerodynamic considerations for ballistics as well. Spire/Spitzer and a boat-tail seems a common requirement. And the weight can be increased as needed (And as technology allows) with nothing that prevents a weight approaching the 15" guns in a smaller, more aerodynamic shape (of course, to be both smaller and heavier would require special materials.
Also I note that the usual shape for bullets is not a ball, as they started out, but has evolved to a more aerodynamic shape. I'm sure the guys spending billions working on it have considered it.
If you can't run your business in such a way that you don't need to resort to fraud or endanger your customers' lives, then you shouldn't be in business in the first place.
Well then what businesses are left, after applying your silly rules?
Tolerances causes more cost than you think, and documentation around military contract is generally at least half the cost of anything. It's not the contractors taking the piss (what, are you in OZ or UK?), but the government being stupid in supporting the military industrial complex.
The big guns on the Iowa were also big bore. These are more aerodynamic, allowing longer glide.
Apart from some guys who get a lot of profit selling books claiming HFT is bad, no one actually makes very much on HFT.
Then why do they have so much spare cash they are spending millions of dollars on faster networks?
The economy is not a zero-sum game,
The economy isn't a zero sum game, but a single trade is, in that the more someone else makes from it, the less you do, and if you know the sell price when you buy, you can define it in terms that it is a zero sum game. I am not trying to hurt the other guy to make my position better, but HFTs do do that.
I love how people go to Jiffy Lube, the cheapest possible service, and complain that the service isn't as good as when you spend 5x as much elsewhere.