The ONE thing politicians care about more than anything else is reelection. That means campaign contributions, including from unions. I'd be nice if they didn't accept such bribes, but it's an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Somebody's going to take it...
The problem in the US is that unions don't accomplish their stated goals. They're money grubbing, self serving, minimal intervention, bureaucratic bullies.
They sometimes fight for wage increases, but that just means they can pull more money out of paychecks. And they don't mind union-taxing a small company to death. What's it to them if they kill the golden goose? Those employees will just go on to another company where this can start all over again. I've seen unions take a stand to prevent employees from being fired who needed to be, and I've seen them run and hide when an employee legitimately needed protecting. It all depends on how much they think it will cost them in money or influence.
And don't even start me on public employee unions. They're a major factor bankrupting entire states. Want to see a real economic recession? Just wait until California defaults. We're working on it...
Remember, the only thing most unions care about is themselves. Sad, but true.
(1) Did you not see all the other comments posting the exact same thing?
(2) Use your head. If Wifi triangulation was being used here, it implies that he actually has the stolen laptop. It's much more likely that something else is going on here.
Uhm, I think you're either leaving something out of your description, or you're confused. MAC addresses aren't transmitted across the Internet. They stop at the first router they come to. Meaning in most sane situations only your DSL modem's MAC is transmitted, and it never leaves your ISP.
It is orders of magnitude more likely that this was a precision flaw in the database. The laptop is at an IP address (not yours) that has a GPS associated with it that indicates the general location, but isn't sufficiently specific. It could be in your neighborhood, or your city, or your county, etc. It just happens to center on your home. (It has to center somewhere.) It's random bad luck. The "rednecks" involved simply looked up the "location" of that IP address, and made the faulty assumption that "X" marks the spot.
For example, if you went to google maps and typed in your town name, it puts a pin there. And yet, you can zoom in to the neighborhood level, and see which house (or street) the pin is sitting on. That doesn't mean that that house is your city. It just happens to be the IP address in the database
.
My recommendation? Be armed with your forward facing IP address (ex: whatismyip.com). If this escalates, as the sheriff to moderate and verify that this address is different than the one that your accusers have.
Pardon? ??AA might not be effective in Canada, but you can bet they have a presence. How else are they going to lobby to change Canadian law?
You don't have SWAT? That's quite unbelievable. I'm sure they go by a different designation. Somebody deals with hostage situations, bomb threats, trains for dealing with rogue snipers, etc.
If it got in at all, then it's not as closed a network as it ought to be. If they can't remove it, then they're either truly incompetent, or it's one nasty piece of software (probably targeted).
Again, in this context I'm really hoping for intervention. I don't think sufficient violence can solve this one without causing permanent injury to leaders or lawyers.
If there aren't any harassment laws that apply, it shouldn't take much to write a reasonably one. Law enforcement officers should be present with cameras and be quick to arrest anybody harassing patrons. Remember, this behavior interferes with the peaceful assembly and free speech of the funeral. (Anything which intentionally interferes with that can be made illegal. There seems to be sufficient precedent of political gatherings.)
You can't make the protesters go away, but you can certainly keep them on public sidewalks and keep them sufficiently quiet. Current anti-harassment laws can be far harsher than that. Also, there are laws in many states which make it illegal to taunt someone into fighting you. Drunken fights frequently end in both fighters getting arrested. Some judge really needs to grow a spine and say: "He shouldn't have hit you, but you really asked for it. No payday for you."
Uh, no I didn't. How many mistakes have you made in your life (rhetorically)? Did you learn anything from them? How then can we learn spiritually without making spiritual mistakes?
I fail to see your point. Or rather, I fail to see what you think I didn't see.
Each religion has a different answer to the dilemma you pose. It's not intractable, just not agreed upon.
I always assumed the weight given to the passage was directly related to the point you were trying to make.
Unfortunate, but usually true.
If you use a bible passage to justify your actions, it does not matter whether or not you consider it historically accurate.
That's just cynical. I'm not the one making points related to Job. Of course it matters that you're willing to believe the passages that you quote. it's vital, in fact.
I find it fascinating (and morally reprehensible) that liberals have intentionally created a class of "poverty" entirely reliant on government aid, and thus have created for themselves a voting bloc.
"Conservative" politicians aren't even fighting to balance the budget. They're just fighting to keep this dependency class from growing as a means of self preservation. Both sides are fighting for votes and both are damaging this country.
(For the record, safety nets are good so long as they don't discourage able bodied individuals from seeking self reliance. Therein lies the rare actual policy disagreements.)
Why-- oh why-- do people keep assuming every passage in the Bible has equal weight?
Job is part of "The Writings", along with Psalms and Proverbs. Basically, it's in the literature section of the Bible. You can't take it as a literal history. The original author didn't.
Certainly if a god created us, it's our own fault he created us imperfect and put us in a situation where we were statistically guaranteed to screw up eventually!
Uh, yeah? We're having one big learning opportunity for a few years prior to eternity. And what are we supposed to learn without messing up? It's not like he didn't give us a safety valve.
I do think some people go way overboard about it, but that isn't really God's fault.
I think that a religion should be judged based upon ALL of the people practicing it, good and bad. [emphasis added]
???
I can understand looking at averages... but All? Churches can't make people be good. Teaching people doesn't make them good. It only helps them be good.
You're expectations are way overboard. You'll give yourself confirmation bias that way.
"almost universally corrupt" may be a just bit overboard. Every church I've seen is made up of people. Even mine. That implies that no church is "perfect" in the celestial sense. That's the whole purpose for churches in the first place. (Granted, some are better at following God's instructions than others.)
In response to Applekid:
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
--James 1:27
Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
--Galatians 6:2
Uh, let me reiterate: "I think some Democrats actually believe they're taking away our liberty for our own good."
Think about it for a moment. How often do they say: "what about _____?" (paraphrased; insert: children, elderly, sick, jobless, homeless, racial equality, women, etc.) They really like taking the moral high road. How are they not "moral busybod[ies]"?
You don't need religion to be moral. It certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite.
Oh, I don't know. I think some Democrats actually believe they're taking away our liberty for our own good. That makes them every bit as dangerous and culpable*, just not as numerous. They're not to be easily dismissed.
*(... as dangerous and culpable as money-grubbing Democrats and Republicans. Yes, both.)
What part of "Not sure how that translates to parking garages" didn't you get? Did you entirely miss the part where billstewart said "Parking cars on the street without current registration is no different legally from driving them on the street, just easier to catch."? What are you trying to say that he didn't already? What's your point?
Besides, there are all kinds of laws that come into play on private property when there is open public access (stores, restaurants, etc) (think nudity, intoxication, etc). In order to get your car to the parking garage, you had to drive it, didn't you? How many people do you know tow their car to a parking garage and then tow it away again? There could easily be grounds to ticket such a vehicle because it was on the public roads.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no they're not.
The ONE thing politicians care about more than anything else is reelection. That means campaign contributions, including from unions. I'd be nice if they didn't accept such bribes, but it's an example of the prisoner's dilemma. Somebody's going to take it...
The problem in the US is that unions don't accomplish their stated goals. They're money grubbing, self serving, minimal intervention, bureaucratic bullies.
They sometimes fight for wage increases, but that just means they can pull more money out of paychecks. And they don't mind union-taxing a small company to death. What's it to them if they kill the golden goose? Those employees will just go on to another company where this can start all over again. I've seen unions take a stand to prevent employees from being fired who needed to be, and I've seen them run and hide when an employee legitimately needed protecting. It all depends on how much they think it will cost them in money or influence.
And don't even start me on public employee unions. They're a major factor bankrupting entire states. Want to see a real economic recession? Just wait until California defaults. We're working on it...
Remember, the only thing most unions care about is themselves. Sad, but true.
Oh it will go away, but it will make a lot of investors (especially in China) very, very irate.
Dude. Robot?
(1) Did you not see all the other comments posting the exact same thing?
(2) Use your head. If Wifi triangulation was being used here, it implies that he actually has the stolen laptop. It's much more likely that something else is going on here.
Uhm, I think you're either leaving something out of your description, or you're confused. MAC addresses aren't transmitted across the Internet. They stop at the first router they come to. Meaning in most sane situations only your DSL modem's MAC is transmitted, and it never leaves your ISP.
It is orders of magnitude more likely that this was a precision flaw in the database. The laptop is at an IP address (not yours) that has a GPS associated with it that indicates the general location, but isn't sufficiently specific. It could be in your neighborhood, or your city, or your county, etc. It just happens to center on your home. (It has to center somewhere.) It's random bad luck. The "rednecks" involved simply looked up the "location" of that IP address, and made the faulty assumption that "X" marks the spot.
For example, if you went to google maps and typed in your town name, it puts a pin there. And yet, you can zoom in to the neighborhood level, and see which house (or street) the pin is sitting on. That doesn't mean that that house is your city. It just happens to be the IP address in the database
.
My recommendation? Be armed with your forward facing IP address (ex: whatismyip.com). If this escalates, as the sheriff to moderate and verify that this address is different than the one that your accusers have.
Pardon? ??AA might not be effective in Canada, but you can bet they have a presence. How else are they going to lobby to change Canadian law?
You don't have SWAT? That's quite unbelievable. I'm sure they go by a different designation. Somebody deals with hostage situations, bomb threats, trains for dealing with rogue snipers, etc.
If it got in at all, then it's not as closed a network as it ought to be. If they can't remove it, then they're either truly incompetent, or it's one nasty piece of software (probably targeted).
I hope you're right, but I kinda doubt it.
Again, in this context I'm really hoping for intervention. I don't think sufficient violence can solve this one without causing permanent injury to leaders or lawyers.
If there aren't any harassment laws that apply, it shouldn't take much to write a reasonably one. Law enforcement officers should be present with cameras and be quick to arrest anybody harassing patrons. Remember, this behavior interferes with the peaceful assembly and free speech of the funeral. (Anything which intentionally interferes with that can be made illegal. There seems to be sufficient precedent of political gatherings.)
You can't make the protesters go away, but you can certainly keep them on public sidewalks and keep them sufficiently quiet. Current anti-harassment laws can be far harsher than that. Also, there are laws in many states which make it illegal to taunt someone into fighting you. Drunken fights frequently end in both fighters getting arrested. Some judge really needs to grow a spine and say: "He shouldn't have hit you, but you really asked for it. No payday for you."
Uh, no I didn't. How many mistakes have you made in your life (rhetorically)? Did you learn anything from them? How then can we learn spiritually without making spiritual mistakes?
I fail to see your point. Or rather, I fail to see what you think I didn't see.
Each religion has a different answer to the dilemma you pose. It's not intractable, just not agreed upon.
I always assumed the weight given to the passage was directly related to the point you were trying to make.
Unfortunate, but usually true.
If you use a bible passage to justify your actions, it does not matter whether or not you consider it historically accurate.
That's just cynical. I'm not the one making points related to Job. Of course it matters that you're willing to believe the passages that you quote. it's vital, in fact.
???
And why exactly would that be accepted as informative?
Safety net, or just net?
I find it fascinating (and morally reprehensible) that liberals have intentionally created a class of "poverty" entirely reliant on government aid, and thus have created for themselves a voting bloc.
"Conservative" politicians aren't even fighting to balance the budget. They're just fighting to keep this dependency class from growing as a means of self preservation. Both sides are fighting for votes and both are damaging this country.
(For the record, safety nets are good so long as they don't discourage able bodied individuals from seeking self reliance. Therein lies the rare actual policy disagreements.)
Ignore them? They're bullies. Ignoring them just makes you miserable. In rare cases where ignoring them works, they change tactics.
Bullies don't stop unless they get bopped on the nose, or an "adult" intervenes firmly and repeatedly. (I'm hoping for the latter in this case.)
There isn't a shred of irrefutable proof anywhere proving any "god" is real.
FTFY
*sigh*
Why-- oh why-- do people keep assuming every passage in the Bible has equal weight?
Job is part of "The Writings", along with Psalms and Proverbs. Basically, it's in the literature section of the Bible. You can't take it as a literal history. The original author didn't.
Certainly if a god created us, it's our own fault he created us imperfect and put us in a situation where we were statistically guaranteed to screw up eventually!
Uh, yeah? We're having one big learning opportunity for a few years prior to eternity. And what are we supposed to learn without messing up? It's not like he didn't give us a safety valve.
I do think some people go way overboard about it, but that isn't really God's fault.
I think that a religion should be judged based upon ALL of the people practicing it, good and bad. [emphasis added]
???
I can understand looking at averages... but All? Churches can't make people be good. Teaching people doesn't make them good. It only helps them be good.
You're expectations are way overboard. You'll give yourself confirmation bias that way.
"almost universally corrupt" may be a just bit overboard. Every church I've seen is made up of people. Even mine. That implies that no church is "perfect" in the celestial sense. That's the whole purpose for churches in the first place. (Granted, some are better at following God's instructions than others.)
In response to Applekid:
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
--James 1:27
Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
--Galatians 6:2
I could go on.
Uh, let me reiterate: "I think some Democrats actually believe they're taking away our liberty for our own good."
Think about it for a moment. How often do they say: "what about _____?" (paraphrased; insert: children, elderly, sick, jobless, homeless, racial equality, women, etc.) They really like taking the moral high road. How are they not "moral busybod[ies]"?
You don't need religion to be moral. It certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite.
Oh, I don't know. I think some Democrats actually believe they're taking away our liberty for our own good. That makes them every bit as dangerous and culpable*, just not as numerous. They're not to be easily dismissed.
*(... as dangerous and culpable as money-grubbing Democrats and Republicans. Yes, both.)
What part of "Not sure how that translates to parking garages" didn't you get? Did you entirely miss the part where billstewart said "Parking cars on the street without current registration is no different legally from driving them on the street, just easier to catch."? What are you trying to say that he didn't already? What's your point?
Besides, there are all kinds of laws that come into play on private property when there is open public access (stores, restaurants, etc) (think nudity, intoxication, etc). In order to get your car to the parking garage, you had to drive it, didn't you? How many people do you know tow their car to a parking garage and then tow it away again? There could easily be grounds to ticket such a vehicle because it was on the public roads.
In the US we have something similar. It's called "planned non-operation" or PNO.
Oh? And just what unethical pursuits am I involved in?
I am in no way shape or form involved in the medical industry, medical practice, medical insurance, et al.
You're just an unhappy troll in need of people to badger. I bet it doesn't really make you feel happy. You just wish that it did.
Innocent until proven guilty? That's a nice thought. It's fantasy, but a nice thought.