In theory they are doing so by proxy. In practice, they are not. Yes, if you piss enough of us off, we could vote out the individuals, but our country isn't run by individuals so much as by corporations. The Democrats and the Republic parties being the two front organizations. Dictatorships, Monarchies, etc. can also have their governments replaced if they piss off enough people. I would guess that it would be a lot easier to raise an army of 100 people willing to take part in violently taking out the current leadership than it would be to raise an army of 100 million people to try to vote the same individuals out. Even if in both cases, the majority of people are really pissed off. Word of mouth can be used in small groups to organize. Organizing 100 million people requires speaking to them. Speaking to them is by definition mass media, and our mass media is controlled by the very people that would need voting out.
Don't worry. Complaints about spelling and grammar is are just internet euphemisms for "I agree with the content of everything you say, but I don't want to admit it, so I will just complain about spelling or grammar."
That was true up to a point. Over the last 5 or so years, we hit the 'good enough' point on computers. Power efficiency is where it is at now. With the last round of upgrades in my home, I went from an average power usage of 180kw on my computers to an average of 40kw. That doesn't even include the fact that most of my computers can actually go into stand by now.
I could never watch shows like COPS. Almost every time I tried, I would see the police either committing crimes, or at the very least behaving incredibly unethically.
I wasn't the one that claimed surprise. But, the poster that did, pointed out that the abuses have been continues. As in there is no one alive today that has not seen it. Being born in 1920 means you saw it. Being born in 1930 means you saw it. Same for 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. Everyone old know what the FBI is has seen abuses by the FBI. That was the OP's point.
They were originally set up to, and did. That is how our civil war was even possible. That has been neutered now. The EU just hasn't been unified long enough to neuter the states military, or to bring them under the control of the federal government. As I said, the EU states have a long history. The EU federal government is still a newborn. The long history of independent states will likely mean that it will take longer there for the federal government to usurp power, but you can be sure that every year, the EU's government will look a little more like the US.
No, but since 1950 was 60 years ago, the majority of people have were born since then, and all of them have spent over half their life living in post 1950.
To be fair, the design of the United States is the same basic design as the European Union. Take a bunch of nation states and unify them under a larger 'Federal' government with limited power. As young as the US is, it is about 200 years ahead of the curve on the Federal issue. Our state laws are young in the world stage. Our federal power grabs are old. It is inevitable that the EU and it's member countries will eventually have major disagreements about the law of the land. Then we can tell if the US is any more radical than Europe when it comes to states vs. federal rights.
Actually, a QR code printed in the back of the book would be a pretty darn cool way to handle it. Yes, you would get sites online that distribute the QR codes, but you already get that with the books themselves, so nothing would be lost on that front.
If Slashdot were a tiny fringe site that had a handful of users, you might have a point. Given it's size, and the number of people that post daily, the only thing in your list that would even raise an eyebrow is then username. Even if they were the same person, Slashdot is large enough that one guy with two accounts would be a drop in any attempt to shift the tide of opinion. Maybe there is just something about the C64 that cause people years later to leave out quotes.
And hence why the question was asked. If you don't pay attention and have a method of dealing with cashiers that break the trust given to them, they can keep causing problems for the business. Being human, some of the would do this. The same applies to admins. If you don't pay attention to what they are doing, and have method of dealing with admins that break the trust given to them, they can keep causing problems for the business. Being human some of them would do this.
The same could be said for most jobs. Admins are not some special breed of human that makes them ethically better than the rest of the population. They are humans. Any business that does not treat them as humans is stupid, and creating problems for themselves.
I don't live in NC, and here in CA there are unions, so I cannot legitimately call BS on your claim, but you make similar claims as teachers here in California, and I know they are lying. So, please understand my skepticism. Do you really not have summer vacations in NC? Or, do all state employees get 3 months of vacation a year? I would think that if either of those were the case, that it would be pretty well known.
People like to talk about Admins like they are somehow a different species than cashiers. Businesses put all sorts of safeguards to prevent cashiers from stealing money. No, it isn't 100%, but it is damage control. The reason they do this is because cashiers are people, and people sometimes do bad things. Yes, they hired the cashier to handle money. That doesn't mean that they should just trust that person to handle it properly with no oversight or protections. The same applies to admins. If the unethical admin were an anomaly, your point might be valid. Unfortunately, they are not. Unethical admins are at least as common as in the general population. Thus the suggestion that admins be exempt from oversight, and businesses skip having contingency plans for unethical admins is very poor advice.
So, you think the solution to better roads is to keep people from using them? By that logic, the best roads would be the ones that are never built. 0 congestions! The correct approach is build roads that can handle the capacity. Building only enough roads to handle the trips that people have no other options than to take, and forcing all other cars off the road is a nightmare. The idea that no matter how much road capacity you make, it will just get filled is stupid. (I know you didn't say that, but it goes hand in hand with what you did say). There are only so many people in the world. Our cars do not drive themselves. Thus there are only so many cars that can be on the road at a time.
I have not read "The High cost of Free Parking", but the points you draw out imply that it is a one sided book that did not take into account important factors. For example, more turn over. From the businesses standpoint, they might collect less money, but from the customers standpoint free parking allows them to pay less money for more product. I'm not talking the cost of the parking either. If you go to a coffee shop, you are not going their out of need. It is an entertaiment expense. If paid parking drives you out of the shop faster, then you got less entertainment for the same amount of money. In fact that happens in exactly the same ratio as the increase that the shop owner gets. It isn't an increased cost. It is just a shifting of wealth. Pretty close to the broken window fallacy.
People circling the block is not a sign that free parking is expensive, but a sign that the goods (one of which is just being at the location) is in high demand, and there isn't enough parking to handle the demand. The suggestion that you drive away customers so that the ones that are left can be handled efficiently from the providers point of view is absurd. That would be like a grocery store reducing the number of cash registers to the point that there is always a long line. That would get them better turn over in the checkout lines. It would look good in the short run. It would not help their bottom line in the long run. It would just drive people away.
There is s certain kind of store that might be able to increase profits by forcing people to shop quickly and get out. Most businesses profit from people who are out 'shopping', and form impulse purchases.
The pedestrian example, if I am understanding it correctly is particularly silly. Either the author is suggesting that they can force people to move from their homes so that they can shop, or they are suggesting that the parking just get moved out of sight.
If toll roads made sense for that reason, then they would make sense on every single road in the nation. Your logic dictates that it is a problem that there is not a toll on the road that runs in front of your house.
Shorter. Their hours are shorter than most. That is why their hourly rate puts them at a higher earning rate than if you count them by the year. No math problem here.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just responding to iammani's question about there being an unofficial definition. Someone has one, even if it isn't very good. I may even be 'Because I said so." Bound and unbound are pretty good definitions. I just don't know if they would be any more useful than the bad definitions.
You are doing bad math, and that doesn't speak well for you as a teacher. That 22k and 33k were for 9 months of work. You then later point out that you only work 9 month and claim that your benefit were not great. You imply that you are laid off for three months as opposed to having a 3 month vacation. If you want to claim the summer as being laid off, then you have to adjust the 22k and 33k to 29k and 44k. Starting your career at 22k and 33k isn't really all that bad, and starting at 29k and 44k is pretty good.
The reason that so many teachers bail, is likely the same reason you did. Poor math skills. The other big factor is likely due to the Unions. The Unions have a vested interest in keeping teachers dissatisfied. In a state like California, the single largest state expenditure is public education. You don't keep increasing your share of the pie by pointing out that you are in the top half of all earners in the state. You do it by dragging out first year teachers and implying that their salaries are typical.
At the end of the day, teachers are still in the top half of earners in pretty much every state. This is by yearly salaries. By hourly rates, they move up into the top 75%.
No, you didn't use the term destitute. You just implied it. Being in a secure job that puts you into the top half of earners, AND you only work 180 days a year is a pretty big financial incentive for teachers to teach.
And there is the answer. Just ad '-ish' to the end of all definitions, and the problem is solved. Who can argue that Pluto is a 'planet-ish' object. Of course it is. Really, you are mostly right. Getting hung up on which noises we should grunt out to describe a particular shade of gray isn't really that productive.
The next question would be, how much do they need to spin before it counts. If it is determined that the out edges of a cluster move 3 feet ever million years, does that count as spinning?
Well, I have heard of inland seas, but never an inland ocean, so someone seems to have a line between ocean and sea. Not sure what it is, but it seems to be out there.
You are misunderstanding the issue. When defining a scientific term like galaxy, vote is perfectly reasonable, as long as the definition is consistent. That is how naming things work. By definition, names are the sounds that people agree apply to specific things. Thus if the population decides that the sounds that make up sky mean the area in the air above us, then that is what it is. Creation vs. Evolutions, are not things that change by what we believe. We are either correct or incorrect. naturalistic healing either works or doesn't work. Voting does not change the laws of physics, but it certainly can change the rules of language.
Honestly, I don't think that the cost of buying the car is the biggest killer in whether you can afford it or not. The insurance is. I have a 10 year old Suzuki Swift and a 5 year old Dodge Ram 2500. Until very recently, I needed the huge pickup for towing and hauling. Since we need two cars in my home, the Swift became the second car. For one person commutes we save money and use less gas by driving the Swift, but when it is time to take a road trip with the family, go shopping, or the Swift has already been taken to a job, that leaves us driving a huge pickup for trips that just shouldn't need it. If I didn't have the ongoing expense of insurance on a third vehicle, I would park the truck 90% of the time, and have a much more fuel efficient small sedan for road trips and shopping.
Obviously I am not suggesting that we get rid of auto insurance, but adjustments to how auto insurance is handled could make a huge difference in getting people to own smaller cars.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory they are doing so by proxy. In practice, they are not. Yes, if you piss enough of us off, we could vote out the individuals, but our country isn't run by individuals so much as by corporations. The Democrats and the Republic parties being the two front organizations. Dictatorships, Monarchies, etc. can also have their governments replaced if they piss off enough people. I would guess that it would be a lot easier to raise an army of 100 people willing to take part in violently taking out the current leadership than it would be to raise an army of 100 million people to try to vote the same individuals out. Even if in both cases, the majority of people are really pissed off. Word of mouth can be used in small groups to organize. Organizing 100 million people requires speaking to them. Speaking to them is by definition mass media, and our mass media is controlled by the very people that would need voting out.
Don't worry. Complaints about spelling and grammar is are just internet euphemisms for "I agree with the content of everything you say, but I don't want to admit it, so I will just complain about spelling or grammar."
That was true up to a point. Over the last 5 or so years, we hit the 'good enough' point on computers. Power efficiency is where it is at now. With the last round of upgrades in my home, I went from an average power usage of 180kw on my computers to an average of 40kw. That doesn't even include the fact that most of my computers can actually go into stand by now.
I could never watch shows like COPS. Almost every time I tried, I would see the police either committing crimes, or at the very least behaving incredibly unethically.
I wasn't the one that claimed surprise. But, the poster that did, pointed out that the abuses have been continues. As in there is no one alive today that has not seen it. Being born in 1920 means you saw it. Being born in 1930 means you saw it. Same for 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000. Everyone old know what the FBI is has seen abuses by the FBI. That was the OP's point.
They were originally set up to, and did. That is how our civil war was even possible. That has been neutered now. The EU just hasn't been unified long enough to neuter the states military, or to bring them under the control of the federal government. As I said, the EU states have a long history. The EU federal government is still a newborn. The long history of independent states will likely mean that it will take longer there for the federal government to usurp power, but you can be sure that every year, the EU's government will look a little more like the US.
No, but since 1950 was 60 years ago, the majority of people have were born since then, and all of them have spent over half their life living in post 1950.
To be fair, the design of the United States is the same basic design as the European Union. Take a bunch of nation states and unify them under a larger 'Federal' government with limited power. As young as the US is, it is about 200 years ahead of the curve on the Federal issue. Our state laws are young in the world stage. Our federal power grabs are old. It is inevitable that the EU and it's member countries will eventually have major disagreements about the law of the land. Then we can tell if the US is any more radical than Europe when it comes to states vs. federal rights.
Actually, a QR code printed in the back of the book would be a pretty darn cool way to handle it. Yes, you would get sites online that distribute the QR codes, but you already get that with the books themselves, so nothing would be lost on that front.
If Slashdot were a tiny fringe site that had a handful of users, you might have a point. Given it's size, and the number of people that post daily, the only thing in your list that would even raise an eyebrow is then username. Even if they were the same person, Slashdot is large enough that one guy with two accounts would be a drop in any attempt to shift the tide of opinion. Maybe there is just something about the C64 that cause people years later to leave out quotes.
And hence why the question was asked. If you don't pay attention and have a method of dealing with cashiers that break the trust given to them, they can keep causing problems for the business. Being human, some of the would do this. The same applies to admins. If you don't pay attention to what they are doing, and have method of dealing with admins that break the trust given to them, they can keep causing problems for the business. Being human some of them would do this.
The same could be said for most jobs. Admins are not some special breed of human that makes them ethically better than the rest of the population. They are humans. Any business that does not treat them as humans is stupid, and creating problems for themselves.
I don't live in NC, and here in CA there are unions, so I cannot legitimately call BS on your claim, but you make similar claims as teachers here in California, and I know they are lying. So, please understand my skepticism. Do you really not have summer vacations in NC? Or, do all state employees get 3 months of vacation a year? I would think that if either of those were the case, that it would be pretty well known.
People like to talk about Admins like they are somehow a different species than cashiers. Businesses put all sorts of safeguards to prevent cashiers from stealing money. No, it isn't 100%, but it is damage control. The reason they do this is because cashiers are people, and people sometimes do bad things. Yes, they hired the cashier to handle money. That doesn't mean that they should just trust that person to handle it properly with no oversight or protections. The same applies to admins. If the unethical admin were an anomaly, your point might be valid. Unfortunately, they are not. Unethical admins are at least as common as in the general population. Thus the suggestion that admins be exempt from oversight, and businesses skip having contingency plans for unethical admins is very poor advice.
So, you think the solution to better roads is to keep people from using them? By that logic, the best roads would be the ones that are never built. 0 congestions! The correct approach is build roads that can handle the capacity. Building only enough roads to handle the trips that people have no other options than to take, and forcing all other cars off the road is a nightmare. The idea that no matter how much road capacity you make, it will just get filled is stupid. (I know you didn't say that, but it goes hand in hand with what you did say). There are only so many people in the world. Our cars do not drive themselves. Thus there are only so many cars that can be on the road at a time.
I have not read "The High cost of Free Parking", but the points you draw out imply that it is a one sided book that did not take into account important factors. For example, more turn over. From the businesses standpoint, they might collect less money, but from the customers standpoint free parking allows them to pay less money for more product. I'm not talking the cost of the parking either. If you go to a coffee shop, you are not going their out of need. It is an entertaiment expense. If paid parking drives you out of the shop faster, then you got less entertainment for the same amount of money. In fact that happens in exactly the same ratio as the increase that the shop owner gets. It isn't an increased cost. It is just a shifting of wealth. Pretty close to the broken window fallacy.
People circling the block is not a sign that free parking is expensive, but a sign that the goods (one of which is just being at the location) is in high demand, and there isn't enough parking to handle the demand. The suggestion that you drive away customers so that the ones that are left can be handled efficiently from the providers point of view is absurd. That would be like a grocery store reducing the number of cash registers to the point that there is always a long line. That would get them better turn over in the checkout lines. It would look good in the short run. It would not help their bottom line in the long run. It would just drive people away.
There is s certain kind of store that might be able to increase profits by forcing people to shop quickly and get out. Most businesses profit from people who are out 'shopping', and form impulse purchases.
The pedestrian example, if I am understanding it correctly is particularly silly. Either the author is suggesting that they can force people to move from their homes so that they can shop, or they are suggesting that the parking just get moved out of sight.
If toll roads made sense for that reason, then they would make sense on every single road in the nation. Your logic dictates that it is a problem that there is not a toll on the road that runs in front of your house.
Ahhh... You are poor at math, so I must be angry.... You do realize that your comment makes no sense.
Shorter. Their hours are shorter than most. That is why their hourly rate puts them at a higher earning rate than if you count them by the year. No math problem here.
No, I responded to the correct post. I was just agreeing with you. Sorry for violating internet protocol. Next time I will call you Hitler first. ;)
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just responding to iammani's question about there being an unofficial definition. Someone has one, even if it isn't very good. I may even be 'Because I said so." Bound and unbound are pretty good definitions. I just don't know if they would be any more useful than the bad definitions.
You are doing bad math, and that doesn't speak well for you as a teacher. That 22k and 33k were for 9 months of work. You then later point out that you only work 9 month and claim that your benefit were not great. You imply that you are laid off for three months as opposed to having a 3 month vacation. If you want to claim the summer as being laid off, then you have to adjust the 22k and 33k to 29k and 44k. Starting your career at 22k and 33k isn't really all that bad, and starting at 29k and 44k is pretty good.
The reason that so many teachers bail, is likely the same reason you did. Poor math skills. The other big factor is likely due to the Unions. The Unions have a vested interest in keeping teachers dissatisfied. In a state like California, the single largest state expenditure is public education. You don't keep increasing your share of the pie by pointing out that you are in the top half of all earners in the state. You do it by dragging out first year teachers and implying that their salaries are typical.
At the end of the day, teachers are still in the top half of earners in pretty much every state. This is by yearly salaries. By hourly rates, they move up into the top 75%.
No, you didn't use the term destitute. You just implied it. Being in a secure job that puts you into the top half of earners, AND you only work 180 days a year is a pretty big financial incentive for teachers to teach.
And there is the answer. Just ad '-ish' to the end of all definitions, and the problem is solved. Who can argue that Pluto is a 'planet-ish' object. Of course it is. Really, you are mostly right. Getting hung up on which noises we should grunt out to describe a particular shade of gray isn't really that productive.
The next question would be, how much do they need to spin before it counts. If it is determined that the out edges of a cluster move 3 feet ever million years, does that count as spinning?
Well, I have heard of inland seas, but never an inland ocean, so someone seems to have a line between ocean and sea. Not sure what it is, but it seems to be out there.
You are misunderstanding the issue. When defining a scientific term like galaxy, vote is perfectly reasonable, as long as the definition is consistent. That is how naming things work. By definition, names are the sounds that people agree apply to specific things. Thus if the population decides that the sounds that make up sky mean the area in the air above us, then that is what it is. Creation vs. Evolutions, are not things that change by what we believe. We are either correct or incorrect. naturalistic healing either works or doesn't work. Voting does not change the laws of physics, but it certainly can change the rules of language.
Honestly, I don't think that the cost of buying the car is the biggest killer in whether you can afford it or not. The insurance is. I have a 10 year old Suzuki Swift and a 5 year old Dodge Ram 2500. Until very recently, I needed the huge pickup for towing and hauling. Since we need two cars in my home, the Swift became the second car. For one person commutes we save money and use less gas by driving the Swift, but when it is time to take a road trip with the family, go shopping, or the Swift has already been taken to a job, that leaves us driving a huge pickup for trips that just shouldn't need it. If I didn't have the ongoing expense of insurance on a third vehicle, I would park the truck 90% of the time, and have a much more fuel efficient small sedan for road trips and shopping.
Obviously I am not suggesting that we get rid of auto insurance, but adjustments to how auto insurance is handled could make a huge difference in getting people to own smaller cars.