How do you purpose that McDonalds impose "personal responsibility" on their customers? Require them to submit to medical and lifestyle interviews to ensure that they aren't making bad nutritional decisions? Ration the number of times they are allowed to eat there per week? Limit their menu choices to those that are appropriate for their age/gender/medical condition?
I don't understand the appeal in pineapple on pizza either. The citrus juices completely overpower the pizza flavor. I'm a bit of a pizza snob though -- growing up surrounded by Italian-Americans will do that to you -- others may disagree.
Of course I'd take a real pizzeria pizza with pineapples on it over anything from Pizza Hut, Little Caesars, etc.
I'm lucky enough to actually not really like the taste, although I feel the I-want-more effect. Same effect I get with some other foods, though, and not just fast food.
Eat your food more slowly. You'll find that to be less of a problem. Someone told me once upon a time that there's a delay of sorts before the brain realizes the stomach is full. I don't know whether or not this is true, but I do know on those occasions that I'm called away in mid meal that I cease being hungry after 15-20 minutes even though I've eaten less food than normal.
If nobody is willing to actually OWN their responsibility, to the point where the nation suffers (loss of productivity = loss of revenue and loss of GDP, loss of mental function = loss of progress and loss of investment)
You realize that same argument (they are costing us money!) can be used to justify all sorts of things that aren't as well intentioned as what you are suggesting?
then surely since the Government is for the people and doing nothing is against the people, the Government must step in.
What about the people that don't want the Government to step in? I'm overweight -- it's something I struggle with. Do you think I should have to justify to Uncle Sam the large pizza that I'm going to order on my way home?
While I agree with you in theory it's obvious that parents are not doing their jobs so government must step in SOMETIMES.
How is taking away the happy meal toy "stepping in"? The parents who are so irresponsible as to allow their kids to live off this crap aren't going there for the free toys. They are going there because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with a better choice at dinnertime.
Unless you happen to be a Mexican-American in AZ apparently.
Can you honestly come up with no better argument than the racism card?
What do you suppose the chance are that there *isn't* a Julio Sanchez (or 50) in the AZ DMV database?
This may come as a surprise to you, but you can look up database records using more than one identifier. Home address, zip code, birth date, height and weight, restrictions/endorsements (i.e: corrective lenses), etc, etc. Somehow I doubt they have 50 Julio Sanchez's all residing at 123 Main St with a birth date of 12/18/1985
This was political, through and through. There needs to be an overhaul of the US system of "justice" - or at least name change so it conforms to "truth in advertising" laws. Start by getting rid of the whole "N Circuit" system.
What does the Federal court system have to do with a case in CA State court?
Companies are not people and only in Bizarro-world would they have first amendment rights.
Companies are made up of people working together for a common goal. Do you believe that the Sierra Club has the right to communicate their objectives to the public? The NRA? The ACLU? Why should the for-profit NY Times be allowed to endorse political candidates (as they do every election cycle) but not the non-profit Sierra Club?
Want to get rid of most of the nuisance lawsuits? Make each side responsible for their own legal fees, win or lose. It works here. Hint - the lawyers don't like it, because it cuts down on the amount of work they can drum up.
Someone I know was terminated from her job for refusing to perform certain "services" for her boss. She had no money at all and had to find a lawyer willing to work on the case for commission. How would she seek justice under your system? She can't afford to put up a bond to cover their legal fees if she loses. What's her choice, pray that she wins and file bankruptcy if she doesn't?
No, but I carry my drivers license. The text of this law says that would be sufficient. Someone who doesn't have ID would simply have to tell the police officers who they are and allow them to look it up in their database and/or retrieve said id.
You prove you aren't an illegal immigrant by telling them who you are and offering to retrieve your drivers license/other form of acceptable ID? The vast majority of police officers would allow you to retrieve said ID, if only to save themselves from the paperwork they get to fill out after an arrest.
You might just as easily have said "What happens when I'm walking around, perfectly legally, without any ID and they detain me because I look like the escaped ex-con from the prison up the road?"
The passenger in seat 54 is an arrogant jack*ss do I have permission to throw him out the escape hatch? Passenger 23 is irate because last time he flew, the other airline lost his baggage and wants to know what you're going to do about that. Passenger 87 says his lunch is no good and wants a refund.
I bet things were easier before Passenger 57 stopped paying his taxes. You could just delegate these jobs to him;)
Your own link discredits the notion that you know what you are talking about:
In the common law legal system, an expungement proceeding is a type of lawsuit in which a first time offender of a prior criminal conviction seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed, thereby making the records unavailable through the state or Federal repositories.
They're part of normal background checks, and even in states where this isn't public information, you normally have to sign a waiver when applying for a job or loan, allowing them to pull this information.
I've never signed any such waiver. The waivers I've signed authorized searches of convictions, not arrests. The only time I've ever had my arrest enter into the decision making process was when I applied for a New York State pistol license. That's unique to NYS and it's anti-gun politics -- most states don't care about arrests when issuing firearms licenses. I hold licenses in Utah and Pennsylvania as well. Neither of them asked about prior arrests, only convictions.
And the government itself isn't any better; a DCF background check, for example, specifically looks for arrest records, not just conviction records. Because states have been sued for hiring people arrested for violence and putting them in charge of children
I can't speak for your state, but NYS does not look at arrests when doing background checks on caregivers. The State does maintain it's own "child abuse registry", which operates under it's own system (no presumption of innocence, no right to confront your accusers), but even that registry doesn't include records of unrelated arrests. It only includes accusations of child abuse that were determined to be "founded" by the relevant state or county agency. I work for a social services agency in NYS and had to go through all the relevant background checks -- the fact that I had previously been arrested did not come up at all.
I fail to see the relevance of using other examples to discredit a law that specifically says that drivers licenses will meet it's requirements.
I would also be interested in hearing you explain why racial bias is unacceptable in policing (or gods forbid, airport security screening) but acceptable in college admissions, employment/housing decisions, etc, etc. I doubt it would be an insightful conservation, since you've already resorted to insulting me.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are those places? I've never had to fill out a form and wait for the FBI to approve my purchase of a video game before....
How do you purpose that McDonalds impose "personal responsibility" on their customers? Require them to submit to medical and lifestyle interviews to ensure that they aren't making bad nutritional decisions? Ration the number of times they are allowed to eat there per week? Limit their menu choices to those that are appropriate for their age/gender/medical condition?
I don't understand the appeal in pineapple on pizza either. The citrus juices completely overpower the pizza flavor. I'm a bit of a pizza snob though -- growing up surrounded by Italian-Americans will do that to you -- others may disagree.
Of course I'd take a real pizzeria pizza with pineapples on it over anything from Pizza Hut, Little Caesars, etc.
I'm lucky enough to actually not really like the taste, although I feel the I-want-more effect. Same effect I get with some other foods, though, and not just fast food.
Eat your food more slowly. You'll find that to be less of a problem. Someone told me once upon a time that there's a delay of sorts before the brain realizes the stomach is full. I don't know whether or not this is true, but I do know on those occasions that I'm called away in mid meal that I cease being hungry after 15-20 minutes even though I've eaten less food than normal.
Seriously? So a county located in a state makes a law like this, yet it is somehow Obama's fault?
Why not? A vocal minority around here blamed state and local decisions on GWB for the better part of eight years.....
Never forget, every village has an idiot, and more often than not he is the mayor.
Fixed that for you ;)
Hey mods, explain to me what I said in the previous comment that constituted trolling.
If nobody is willing to actually OWN their responsibility, to the point where the nation suffers (loss of productivity = loss of revenue and loss of GDP, loss of mental function = loss of progress and loss of investment)
You realize that same argument (they are costing us money!) can be used to justify all sorts of things that aren't as well intentioned as what you are suggesting?
then surely since the Government is for the people and doing nothing is against the people, the Government must step in.
What about the people that don't want the Government to step in? I'm overweight -- it's something I struggle with. Do you think I should have to justify to Uncle Sam the large pizza that I'm going to order on my way home?
Do you think it's okay to allow children to buy cigarettes and booze?
Why not? It's not like they can't get them anyway. Better to buy them at your local 711 than from the shady looking guy behind the dumpster....
Lets ban drugs, alcohol, sodium, and internet usage as well.
We've already banned #1 and tried to ban #2. Politicians are hard at work on #3. Don't give them any ideas regarding #4.....
While I agree with you in theory it's obvious that parents are not doing their jobs so government must step in SOMETIMES.
How is taking away the happy meal toy "stepping in"? The parents who are so irresponsible as to allow their kids to live off this crap aren't going there for the free toys. They are going there because they are too lazy and/or stupid to come up with a better choice at dinnertime.
Yes, preventing corporations from taking advantage is a bad thing.
I wasn't aware that including a toy with a meal was "taking advantage"
Just pointing out that going after the employers is easier said than done.
Unless you happen to be a Mexican-American in AZ apparently.
Can you honestly come up with no better argument than the racism card?
What do you suppose the chance are that there *isn't* a Julio Sanchez (or 50) in the AZ DMV database?
This may come as a surprise to you, but you can look up database records using more than one identifier. Home address, zip code, birth date, height and weight, restrictions/endorsements (i.e: corrective lenses), etc, etc. Somehow I doubt they have 50 Julio Sanchez's all residing at 123 Main St with a birth date of 12/18/1985
This was political, through and through. There needs to be an overhaul of the US system of "justice" - or at least name change so it conforms to "truth in advertising" laws. Start by getting rid of the whole "N Circuit" system.
What does the Federal court system have to do with a case in CA State court?
Companies are not people and only in Bizarro-world would they have first amendment rights.
Companies are made up of people working together for a common goal. Do you believe that the Sierra Club has the right to communicate their objectives to the public? The NRA? The ACLU? Why should the for-profit NY Times be allowed to endorse political candidates (as they do every election cycle) but not the non-profit Sierra Club?
Want to get rid of most of the nuisance lawsuits? Make each side responsible for their own legal fees, win or lose. It works here. Hint - the lawyers don't like it, because it cuts down on the amount of work they can drum up.
Someone I know was terminated from her job for refusing to perform certain "services" for her boss. She had no money at all and had to find a lawyer willing to work on the case for commission. How would she seek justice under your system? She can't afford to put up a bond to cover their legal fees if she loses. What's her choice, pray that she wins and file bankruptcy if she doesn't?
or support casual drug use of any kind
And yet, here you are, posting on /. ;)
According to his own lawyer, he was convicted because he didn't listen to his lawyer when told to shut up
That sounds better than "My client did what I told him but was still convicted without a body because I'm a lousy lawyer."
No, but I carry my drivers license. The text of this law says that would be sufficient. Someone who doesn't have ID would simply have to tell the police officers who they are and allow them to look it up in their database and/or retrieve said id.
This really isn't complicated.
You prove you aren't an illegal immigrant by telling them who you are and offering to retrieve your drivers license/other form of acceptable ID? The vast majority of police officers would allow you to retrieve said ID, if only to save themselves from the paperwork they get to fill out after an arrest.
You might just as easily have said "What happens when I'm walking around, perfectly legally, without any ID and they detain me because I look like the escaped ex-con from the prison up the road?"
Nice bit of metric snobbery there, but the airline industry still uses knots to indicate airspeed and feet to indicate altitude....
The passenger in seat 54 is an arrogant jack*ss do I have permission to throw him out the escape hatch? Passenger 23 is irate because last time he flew, the other airline lost his baggage and wants to know what you're going to do about that. Passenger 87 says his lunch is no good and wants a refund.
I bet things were easier before Passenger 57 stopped paying his taxes. You could just delegate these jobs to him ;)
Yeah, looking down at your little screen instead of out there where there might be passing birds that fly into your engines
Yeah, I've often worried about all those birds at 36,000 feet while in the cruise portion of my flights....
Your own link discredits the notion that you know what you are talking about:
In the common law legal system, an expungement proceeding is a type of lawsuit in which a first time offender of a prior criminal conviction seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed, thereby making the records unavailable through the state or Federal repositories.
They're part of normal background checks, and even in states where this isn't public information, you normally have to sign a waiver when applying for a job or loan, allowing them to pull this information.
I've never signed any such waiver. The waivers I've signed authorized searches of convictions, not arrests. The only time I've ever had my arrest enter into the decision making process was when I applied for a New York State pistol license. That's unique to NYS and it's anti-gun politics -- most states don't care about arrests when issuing firearms licenses. I hold licenses in Utah and Pennsylvania as well. Neither of them asked about prior arrests, only convictions.
And the government itself isn't any better; a DCF background check, for example, specifically looks for arrest records, not just conviction records. Because states have been sued for hiring people arrested for violence and putting them in charge of children
I can't speak for your state, but NYS does not look at arrests when doing background checks on caregivers. The State does maintain it's own "child abuse registry", which operates under it's own system (no presumption of innocence, no right to confront your accusers), but even that registry doesn't include records of unrelated arrests. It only includes accusations of child abuse that were determined to be "founded" by the relevant state or county agency. I work for a social services agency in NYS and had to go through all the relevant background checks -- the fact that I had previously been arrested did not come up at all.
I fail to see the relevance of using other examples to discredit a law that specifically says that drivers licenses will meet it's requirements.
I would also be interested in hearing you explain why racial bias is unacceptable in policing (or gods forbid, airport security screening) but acceptable in college admissions, employment/housing decisions, etc, etc. I doubt it would be an insightful conservation, since you've already resorted to insulting me.
You almost read /. less than the editors
Fixed that for you ;)