Theft comes in many charges depending on the risk to human injury. Burglary, for example, occurs when a thief breaks into a empty home/building to take items of value. While people are nearby, or asleep, carries a different charge, even when they are unaware of the event at the time. Robbery and armed robbery, involve direct and hostile behavior toward the person being stolen from. The charges for robbery, and esp armed robbery, carry much higher sentencing than burglary. This is because the dynamics of robbery can change at a moments notice and escalate to assault resulting in injury, rape, and possibly death.
As someone older than gen-y, I can remember a time before debit cards (originally called check cards). The closest thing was an ATM card where you pulled out cash every evening for entertainment resulted in actual lines waiting to use an ATM.
Debit cards and a mostly plastic transaction system have dried up the 'food source' for street mugging significantly. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but if you have no money its likely accepted as normal for a mark to be penniless. This is why identity theft and card cloning evolved to replace mugging. While the result might involve more money stolen, the risk to your safety is non-existent.
Carrying more than $50 in your wallet, or pulling out large sums at a convenient store ATM, will draw unwanted attention and possibly lead to a higher risk form of theft. However, Its never a bad idea to have some emergency cash squirreled away for emergencies. In my trunk of my car I have a basic survival kit of misc things useful for making a shelter or making a fire, should I find myself stranded from an auto breakdown. In said kit is two $20 bills, because running out of gas or low on gas where a card is not accepted is yet another form of stranded. So carrying emergency gas money is never a bad idea.
The risk has to do with people seeing you carrying large (subjective) amounts of cash. People pay with cash so rarely these days, I always pay attention when I see it. I notice, do they pay with large bills and collect change? Are they the type to dig until they find the exact dollar and change amounts, holding up the line forever? If I notice these things, you bet someone inclined to take it from you also notices.
There is no good bug spray that will kill a spider population in your house. Aside from direct spray, they walk above the poison and are unaffected. To deal with spiders you have to kill off their food source. Using electronic currency reduces the spider population and helps to at least keep the theft one where there is no risk of violence.
that's always the case in just about any sort of technology. We throw away outdated smart phones that are hundreds of times more powerful than the computer that put apollo 11 on the moon. At one time only a few people on the planet had access to the sort of computing power we take for granted daily. Eventually this kind of therapy will take an hour, require a needle biopsy of the mass, and a smartphone to run the sequencing via bluetooth to some piece of field-grade lab equipment to sequence the structure. Eventually this will be the sort of thing a general doctor can do in his office and just charge regular office visits for.
Im not an immunologist, but why couldn't this same vaccine not also be given to someone fighting their first battle with cancer also? Wouldnt these sequencing shots also serve as an immune system booster for that specific rna/dna sequence?
its an impossibility. When schools close for christmas break there is always the outcry of favoritism. The truth to school holidays has nothing to do with anything besides money. School funding is based on attendance each and every day. If 20% of the school gets the flu and stays home, guess what? The school closes entirely to avoid taking a 20% hit in funding for those days. When a school closes for christmas break, its only because holding school will result in civil disobedience and parents taking their kids for vacation, etc anyway. The net result is a loss of money. There really is no hidden religious agenda despite how some may want to spin that. I've read that a couple cities in MI were upset because the school was not observing muslim holidays. What they failed to grasp is that if the muslim community was truly the majority as claimed, then they hold all the power and should keep their kids home on that holiday every year. Eventually someone on the school board will schedule that holiday in order to get more funding. Its not as much as 'teaching' religion as much as it is about acknowledging their beliefs. The smart play is to try and be respectful of everyone, but also teach that rights only extend as far such that they do not infringe of others. The old expression 'your freedom of speech ends where my nose begins' holds true here.
Personally I would not care if a school scheduled 20min around noon as a 'break'. Those that wanted to pray on a mat could do so, while those that did not would simply get 20min of break. As long as the mat praying people do not take it upon themselves to judge, attack, insult the non-praying group of out any imagined offence to them or their god, I really dont think students would give a shit. In the military, sundays are half-days (no such thing as a real day off) so that people can get to their religious service of choice. If you're not religious, you still get the half day off so its still fine with those as well (although i must admit that they often, when needing extra help, will come down to berthing and conscript the non-believers first since they happen to be easy pickings).
you should have not posted as AC, because too few people actually realize this. They constantly get fed bullshit from one side that promptly blames the other. Right now I'm seeing this to a disproportionate degree from the left, but its always there. Since just before the election I've seen claims that the right will bring about world war 3, enslave billions, starve entire countries, cause the plague, famine, the apocalypse,.. you name it. Then the media gives them a voice to spread their fearmongering to the extent that people believe this horshit so much that they act out in pure, unadulterated violence. The media does nothing to tone down the rhetoric, instead they fan the flames, despite the threats of assasination, and exile. Then suddenly someone makes a video gif of trump punching a CNN logo and NOW SUDDENLY the media goes on and on about professionalism and how its not cool to threaten the press. To hell with that. They said nothing as other people have been threatened, even shot. They even were caught rejoicing when that shooter shot up the baseball practice.
The only solution is to eliminate a 2 party system. Polarization and a 50/50 divide where people believe one side as the epitome of good while the other the bastion of evil is Toxic to this country.
thats a good point, but I think the article is more about a temporary visit. Its absolutely ridiculous to jump to conclusions as to why they are banned. The article already says that other students were allowed in who WERE from actual banned countries. So this is not a case of a blanket policy preventing admission. Don't you guys remember the old musician Cat Stephens getting on the no-fly list about 12+ yrs ago because he had the exact same real name as a known terrorist and it was his name alone that put him on a no-fly list. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe there was actionable intel that one of the members was a known subversive. The point is the article did a crap job of trying to tie a 90 ban to some girls in afghanistan since the 90 ban doesnt actually cover said country.
you say he's ridiculous, but your the anonymous coward that keeps posting and not owning what you say? A lot of nerve to call someone else ridiculous while, at the same time, hiding behind screens and applying the vagisil to tame that uncontrollable itch.
exactly. Its the private corporations aka publishers like Houghton-Mifflan that have more influence than any teacher. They get the contracts to make all the materials.
kids are intelligent, but not yet wise. Wisdom comes from mistakes and experience. Kids are easily brainwashed and biased. They often believe anything they see in writing. If you combine that with a very black-and-white perspective on life that kids have, consequences of non-conformity would be very much in line with Lord of the Flies. It would be a mistake letting kids choose a curriculum that potentially is drowning in intolerance of others.
Which will eventually create a whole new type of 'magnet' school. The more diversity we have as a country, the more these problems are going to manifest. One type of curriculum only works when the overwhelming majority concur with content. If you have 5 major religions with their own, vastly different, theocracies, all with equal number of members, nobody is going to agree on anything. The only workable solution is have schools that lean more one way than the other (lean, not flat out theocracy in schools). If a school wants to have a 20min break for prayer on a mat everyday, that's going to require an overwhelming majority to pull off. I'm not excited by the solution, but I think this is going to be the only compromise and will remove yet another source of division. Each school will still have to teach that having a different opinion does not make them wrong or bad and that religious choice is important. They will also have to teach that even if your beliefs say that other practices are wicked, its not your job to do something about it. If god is big enough to have a great flood, or burn an entire city to the ground with fire and brimstone, Its reasonable to assume he can fight his own battles. Thats going to be key eventually in the religious aspect of school.
Actually the constitution itself only goes as far as saying the federal government will not oppose religious choice and it will not create a church the way England created 'the church of England'. The entire 'separation of church and state' came from a letter written by then-president Thomas Jefferson. While it is a very good idea to base policy, it does not have the complete support of the constitution and therefore states can push the boundaries. This is why you can find 10 commandments in courthouses, under god on the currency and being sworn into service or under oath in a court has words like 'so help me god'. As long as the courthouse does not push a specific church it can still make remarks about 'god' in a vague form. Now if the courthouse went as far as go include publications specific to The Southern Baptist Convention, then that would violate the first amendment. Even if a school pushes Christianity over other religions, its still not establishing a 'church'. It would be violation the separation of church and state policy, but not the constitution itself. Its difficult to make an argument that all christian religions are the same and therefore as a whole counts as a 'church'. Tell a southern baptist that he's exactly like a catholic and see how long her 'turns the other cheek' before punching you in the nose.
Im sure there's plenty of out of work lawyers celebrating this law. They're the only ones that are going to benefit. We graduate WAAAY to many lawyers every year; each with $200k - $300k in student loans. Each paying $3500+ a year in Bar dues to maintain their license. This could become an entire industry similar to lobbyists. Entire industries based on obstructionism.
Honestly, I am surprised this didnt come out of Kalifornia. I guess the common denominator here is they are both very sunny locations. Maybe its a medical condition from too much sun causing both areas to go off the deep end all the time?
The part where they remove the material during the hearing process is a gaping loophole. I could challenge not just history and science, but could conceivably also challenge the way math is taught. Essentially I could shut down the entire education system in as few as a few hundred complaints of various topics. The only requirement seems to be a well constructed argument. With all the out of work lawyers out there, I could even see this as a mechanism to slow education until some 'incentive' was used to bribe a withdrawal of the complaint.
agreed, but there is always 2 sides of an equation... if you dont work both sides it wont balance, you just drive up costs. You said it yourself : "to be able to support themselves". Lets say that it costs $1000/wk to support yourself, your wife, and your kids living a meager lifestyle. You work for $400/wk and your wife works for $400/wk. Now one approach could be to raise minimum wage, but run the risk of the cost to support everyone increasing to $1100/wk, or you can focus on lowering the cost of living down to $800/wk. A lot less discussion ever happens about the latter yet we see examples of that sort of thing actually happening from time to time.
Not that I would count most things in the tech industry as essentials, but look at things like cell phone plans, internet plans, etc over the last 10yrs. Just the talking and texting part of cellphones has fallen all the way down to $15/mo for unlimited talk and texting. In 2003 sprint was selling 1000 minutes of air time for $100/mo. No texting included. This just illustrates that its entirely possible to lower the costs of essentials perhaps easier than it is to raise wages.
What is killing everyone, despite everyone insisting its good for the economy, is property booms. Before the big 2008 crash, my real estate area had experienced a 30yr trend where property values doubled every 10 yrs. No increase in wages but the cost of property doubling every 10yrs is a recipe for the poor house. Increase property values work against the affordable living scenario.
well I'm torn on the issue. I dont want people to get shit wages, but raising minimum wage wont solve the issue. Raising minimum wage amounts to forced inflation. If people still have a hard time understanding why, look back 5 yrs when we had $4/gal gas. How many things started going up in price as a result of the increase cost of fuel and energy? It got so bad that some countries started rioting because they had to chose between eating and paying rent. The prices of consumables went up 150% in some cases. 80/20 ground beef skyrocketed to $4.50/lb (now back down to around $2 - $3). Milk got as high as $3.20/gal (now back just below $2) etc. When expenses go up, for any reason, thats going to ripple back out into the cost of goods sold. The things we consume the most of, are often staffed by low wages to keep costs down. I would hate to see how much a cup of starbucks coffee costs when the cheapest employee is $15/hr. Most likely they'd cut staff and force everyone else to work 3x as hard to offset the expense, less a single cup of coffee might actually cost $15 as well.
Frankly I think the real approach should not be focused on wages (as that is a relative number and only matters in its proportional relationship to expenses), but instead focus on spending power. Driving down costs of consumables can also have an impact on someone's spending power without having to change the income ratio. This is why someone making the Peso equivalent to $20/day sounds horrible here, but there it gets them everything they need.
On the flip side, there is Bezos; who seems to get this; but also gets vilified for wanting to automate all these positions to avoid wages in order to keep the cost of consumables down. Im not a Bezo's cheerleader; but I have to admit I have benefited from many of his methods. I, and many in my area, are still in this void of not having received a pay raise since at least 2006 (sometime before things went to shit). The fact that I am now 46 working in a very technical industry only hurts my changes even further. I see fresh-out-of-college people starting out at wages most of my peers took 10+ yrs to achieve. Had it not been for this 'increase in spending power', things could have been a lot worse for us.
This makes situations like cheap Chinese manufactured goods such a difficult subject. On one side it hurts things here a lot, but on the other side, its the only thing allowing most used-to-be middle-class a shot at a secure enough lifestyle that their kids still get the stuff they need for school and can grow up somewhat unaware of the struggles people face each day.
I'm assuming they were hired specifically for this sort of out-of-the-box workarounds. You cannot turn someone into something they are not and telling them to be anything other than what they are impedes them from performing at their best when you need them to. If I was the supervisor that had been made aware of this, I would have found a way to expense payments to the vendor without letting the employee's know. 1) it keeps skills from workers you may need solidly in the 'asset' category, 2) it keeps their focus broader than the specifics of daytoday work, allowing for versatility when the times comes, and 3) this information could even be used later as leverage and blackmail.. this IS the CIA people.... lying, stealing, cheating, backstabbing is par for the course.
Not for whole foods.... you already knew, walking into the store, that every single retailer on the planet, was a cheaper buy:-). If you were looking for a cheaper choice, you would at least stop at Trader Joe's first.
or license it to brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, etc. If the licensing is enough to cover the margins Amazon gets for hosting a product, not only do they still make the profit margins they were expecting, but they dont have to expend labor and shipping in the process. It would be a legal, and unique, twist on the old mob shakedown 'fire insurance' scenario. Buy my amazon-blocking app and you'll never worry about lost sales from us.
Its a good reason to NOT ban them. Stop pretending like its going to cut down own the murder rate. It DOESNT. Thats why fucktards like you only ever quote GUN VIOLENCE statitics. Those same statistics also prove that gun bans will be MUCH more discriminatory to minorities and people of welfare than the top 1%. You cannot be that fucking retarded, its impossible. Do you seriously think your drug laws are all that fucking successful too? And yes I do think its time to get rid of those laws and re-look at that problem as well. As 100yrs of doing the same thing, without success I might add, is plenty of reason NOT to do it for 100 more years. I would guess that your also extremely young. Probably so fucking young that you do not realize that its these gun-toting-americans that save your ass year after year after year. Take a look at the standard compliment of UN Troops sometime. You seriously think your piss-ant sized country with their entire 2000 troop contribution (should have spelled it Troupe) makes for fucking anything in a real military campaign? You sound almost as bad as the french, rolling over, letting Hitler come along and fuck them in the ass... "not our art! anything but our art!". You want to do something about the murder rate? Tackle the real problem. Stop repeating something youve been told and think for yourself. This is from a former UN 'peacekeeper' thats sick and tired of being judged by the likes of those Incapable and Unwilling to mount their own defense, or even pay for it for that matter.
this was the basis of the 1930s National Firearms Act. The 1984 Hugh's amendment to said law, unfortunately, did just that. Now they do. Because one guy walked onto a playground in California with a Chinese version of an AK and killed a bunch of kids. They passed to law because they believed only an automatic weapon could commit mass casualties. Its the first of many expamples of gun laws not doing a damn thing to stop mass killing.
are these the same polls that deliberately added fake points to Hillary to solicit more votes and call a close election? Polls are as worthless as tits on a bull. One of the many Wikileaks from the DNC campain was how they used tricks to skew polls to make them look better. It was also revealed that NYT deliberately ran 3 week old poll numbers instead of recent ones because they didnt like the results.
They did not vote because many were democrats that could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary. Its not that the democrats failed to engage, but they chose 'their evil' instead of picking someone else. Not everyone goes to the polls torn between voting for the _perceived_ lesser of two evils. I would say nearly 90 million chose not to vote at all. I would also say that the media's deliberate altering of poll data in order to convince people to 'vote with the clear majority' also backfired as it got more to stay at home since 'she was already going to win'.
and 20 years of Reality TV shows were not an indication of this? This political system is nothing but a giant reality TV show. The loudest, most public faces of both parties, are more or less your Snookies and Honey Booboo's of the world. Just 2 days ago I read a NYT article citing 3 different law professors that say its impossible for Trump to obstruct an investigation by firing Comey because all investigations begin and end at his exclusive authority and therefore by ending an investigation it cannot be ruled obstruction. That sure as hell hasn't stopped the headlines in the last 2 days throwing out the impeach word again. Its a reality dog-and-pony show. Nobody is going to get impeached. Its politially advantageous to keep beating this drum and PRETENDING to do something than actually doing it. This is going to get drug out for 3.5 more years. Its all part of the show.
Slashdot Mirror
Theft comes in many charges depending on the risk to human injury. Burglary, for example, occurs when a thief breaks into a empty home/building to take items of value. While people are nearby, or asleep, carries a different charge, even when they are unaware of the event at the time. Robbery and armed robbery, involve direct and hostile behavior toward the person being stolen from. The charges for robbery, and esp armed robbery, carry much higher sentencing than burglary. This is because the dynamics of robbery can change at a moments notice and escalate to assault resulting in injury, rape, and possibly death.
As someone older than gen-y, I can remember a time before debit cards (originally called check cards). The closest thing was an ATM card where you pulled out cash every evening for entertainment resulted in actual lines waiting to use an ATM.
Debit cards and a mostly plastic transaction system have dried up the 'food source' for street mugging significantly. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but if you have no money its likely accepted as normal for a mark to be penniless. This is why identity theft and card cloning evolved to replace mugging. While the result might involve more money stolen, the risk to your safety is non-existent.
Carrying more than $50 in your wallet, or pulling out large sums at a convenient store ATM, will draw unwanted attention and possibly lead to a higher risk form of theft. However, Its never a bad idea to have some emergency cash squirreled away for emergencies. In my trunk of my car I have a basic survival kit of misc things useful for making a shelter or making a fire, should I find myself stranded from an auto breakdown. In said kit is two $20 bills, because running out of gas or low on gas where a card is not accepted is yet another form of stranded. So carrying emergency gas money is never a bad idea.
The risk has to do with people seeing you carrying large (subjective) amounts of cash. People pay with cash so rarely these days, I always pay attention when I see it. I notice, do they pay with large bills and collect change? Are they the type to dig until they find the exact dollar and change amounts, holding up the line forever? If I notice these things, you bet someone inclined to take it from you also notices.
There is no good bug spray that will kill a spider population in your house. Aside from direct spray, they walk above the poison and are unaffected. To deal with spiders you have to kill off their food source. Using electronic currency reduces the spider population and helps to at least keep the theft one where there is no risk of violence.
that's always the case in just about any sort of technology. We throw away outdated smart phones that are hundreds of times more powerful than the computer that put apollo 11 on the moon. At one time only a few people on the planet had access to the sort of computing power we take for granted daily. Eventually this kind of therapy will take an hour, require a needle biopsy of the mass, and a smartphone to run the sequencing via bluetooth to some piece of field-grade lab equipment to sequence the structure. Eventually this will be the sort of thing a general doctor can do in his office and just charge regular office visits for.
Im not an immunologist, but why couldn't this same vaccine not also be given to someone fighting their first battle with cancer also? Wouldnt these sequencing shots also serve as an immune system booster for that specific rna/dna sequence?
as in they might be a refuse-to-leave risk? That's an interesting statistic I was unaware of though it does make sense.
its an impossibility. When schools close for christmas break there is always the outcry of favoritism. The truth to school holidays has nothing to do with anything besides money. School funding is based on attendance each and every day. If 20% of the school gets the flu and stays home, guess what? The school closes entirely to avoid taking a 20% hit in funding for those days. When a school closes for christmas break, its only because holding school will result in civil disobedience and parents taking their kids for vacation, etc anyway. The net result is a loss of money. There really is no hidden religious agenda despite how some may want to spin that. I've read that a couple cities in MI were upset because the school was not observing muslim holidays. What they failed to grasp is that if the muslim community was truly the majority as claimed, then they hold all the power and should keep their kids home on that holiday every year. Eventually someone on the school board will schedule that holiday in order to get more funding. Its not as much as 'teaching' religion as much as it is about acknowledging their beliefs. The smart play is to try and be respectful of everyone, but also teach that rights only extend as far such that they do not infringe of others. The old expression 'your freedom of speech ends where my nose begins' holds true here.
Personally I would not care if a school scheduled 20min around noon as a 'break'. Those that wanted to pray on a mat could do so, while those that did not would simply get 20min of break. As long as the mat praying people do not take it upon themselves to judge, attack, insult the non-praying group of out any imagined offence to them or their god, I really dont think students would give a shit. In the military, sundays are half-days (no such thing as a real day off) so that people can get to their religious service of choice. If you're not religious, you still get the half day off so its still fine with those as well (although i must admit that they often, when needing extra help, will come down to berthing and conscript the non-believers first since they happen to be easy pickings).
you should have not posted as AC, because too few people actually realize this. They constantly get fed bullshit from one side that promptly blames the other. Right now I'm seeing this to a disproportionate degree from the left, but its always there. Since just before the election I've seen claims that the right will bring about world war 3, enslave billions, starve entire countries, cause the plague, famine, the apocalypse,.. you name it. Then the media gives them a voice to spread their fearmongering to the extent that people believe this horshit so much that they act out in pure, unadulterated violence. The media does nothing to tone down the rhetoric, instead they fan the flames, despite the threats of assasination, and exile. Then suddenly someone makes a video gif of trump punching a CNN logo and NOW SUDDENLY the media goes on and on about professionalism and how its not cool to threaten the press. To hell with that. They said nothing as other people have been threatened, even shot. They even were caught rejoicing when that shooter shot up the baseball practice.
The only solution is to eliminate a 2 party system. Polarization and a 50/50 divide where people believe one side as the epitome of good while the other the bastion of evil is Toxic to this country.
thats a good point, but I think the article is more about a temporary visit. Its absolutely ridiculous to jump to conclusions as to why they are banned. The article already says that other students were allowed in who WERE from actual banned countries. So this is not a case of a blanket policy preventing admission. Don't you guys remember the old musician Cat Stephens getting on the no-fly list about 12+ yrs ago because he had the exact same real name as a known terrorist and it was his name alone that put him on a no-fly list. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe there was actionable intel that one of the members was a known subversive. The point is the article did a crap job of trying to tie a 90 ban to some girls in afghanistan since the 90 ban doesnt actually cover said country.
you say he's ridiculous, but your the anonymous coward that keeps posting and not owning what you say? A lot of nerve to call someone else ridiculous while, at the same time, hiding behind screens and applying the vagisil to tame that uncontrollable itch.
exactly. Its the private corporations aka publishers like Houghton-Mifflan that have more influence than any teacher. They get the contracts to make all the materials.
kids are intelligent, but not yet wise. Wisdom comes from mistakes and experience. Kids are easily brainwashed and biased. They often believe anything they see in writing. If you combine that with a very black-and-white perspective on life that kids have, consequences of non-conformity would be very much in line with Lord of the Flies. It would be a mistake letting kids choose a curriculum that potentially is drowning in intolerance of others.
Which will eventually create a whole new type of 'magnet' school. The more diversity we have as a country, the more these problems are going to manifest. One type of curriculum only works when the overwhelming majority concur with content. If you have 5 major religions with their own, vastly different, theocracies, all with equal number of members, nobody is going to agree on anything. The only workable solution is have schools that lean more one way than the other (lean, not flat out theocracy in schools). If a school wants to have a 20min break for prayer on a mat everyday, that's going to require an overwhelming majority to pull off. I'm not excited by the solution, but I think this is going to be the only compromise and will remove yet another source of division. Each school will still have to teach that having a different opinion does not make them wrong or bad and that religious choice is important. They will also have to teach that even if your beliefs say that other practices are wicked, its not your job to do something about it. If god is big enough to have a great flood, or burn an entire city to the ground with fire and brimstone, Its reasonable to assume he can fight his own battles. Thats going to be key eventually in the religious aspect of school.
Actually the constitution itself only goes as far as saying the federal government will not oppose religious choice and it will not create a church the way England created 'the church of England'. The entire 'separation of church and state' came from a letter written by then-president Thomas Jefferson. While it is a very good idea to base policy, it does not have the complete support of the constitution and therefore states can push the boundaries. This is why you can find 10 commandments in courthouses, under god on the currency and being sworn into service or under oath in a court has words like 'so help me god'. As long as the courthouse does not push a specific church it can still make remarks about 'god' in a vague form. Now if the courthouse went as far as go include publications specific to The Southern Baptist Convention, then that would violate the first amendment. Even if a school pushes Christianity over other religions, its still not establishing a 'church'. It would be violation the separation of church and state policy, but not the constitution itself. Its difficult to make an argument that all christian religions are the same and therefore as a whole counts as a 'church'. Tell a southern baptist that he's exactly like a catholic and see how long her 'turns the other cheek' before punching you in the nose.
Im sure there's plenty of out of work lawyers celebrating this law. They're the only ones that are going to benefit. We graduate WAAAY to many lawyers every year; each with $200k - $300k in student loans. Each paying $3500+ a year in Bar dues to maintain their license. This could become an entire industry similar to lobbyists. Entire industries based on obstructionism.
Honestly, I am surprised this didnt come out of Kalifornia. I guess the common denominator here is they are both very sunny locations. Maybe its a medical condition from too much sun causing both areas to go off the deep end all the time?
The part where they remove the material during the hearing process is a gaping loophole. I could challenge not just history and science, but could conceivably also challenge the way math is taught. Essentially I could shut down the entire education system in as few as a few hundred complaints of various topics. The only requirement seems to be a well constructed argument. With all the out of work lawyers out there, I could even see this as a mechanism to slow education until some 'incentive' was used to bribe a withdrawal of the complaint.
agreed, but there is always 2 sides of an equation... if you dont work both sides it wont balance, you just drive up costs. You said it yourself : "to be able to support themselves". Lets say that it costs $1000/wk to support yourself, your wife, and your kids living a meager lifestyle. You work for $400/wk and your wife works for $400/wk. Now one approach could be to raise minimum wage, but run the risk of the cost to support everyone increasing to $1100/wk, or you can focus on lowering the cost of living down to $800/wk. A lot less discussion ever happens about the latter yet we see examples of that sort of thing actually happening from time to time.
Not that I would count most things in the tech industry as essentials, but look at things like cell phone plans, internet plans, etc over the last 10yrs. Just the talking and texting part of cellphones has fallen all the way down to $15/mo for unlimited talk and texting. In 2003 sprint was selling 1000 minutes of air time for $100/mo. No texting included. This just illustrates that its entirely possible to lower the costs of essentials perhaps easier than it is to raise wages.
What is killing everyone, despite everyone insisting its good for the economy, is property booms. Before the big 2008 crash, my real estate area had experienced a 30yr trend where property values doubled every 10 yrs. No increase in wages but the cost of property doubling every 10yrs is a recipe for the poor house. Increase property values work against the affordable living scenario.
well I'm torn on the issue. I dont want people to get shit wages, but raising minimum wage wont solve the issue. Raising minimum wage amounts to forced inflation. If people still have a hard time understanding why, look back 5 yrs when we had $4/gal gas. How many things started going up in price as a result of the increase cost of fuel and energy? It got so bad that some countries started rioting because they had to chose between eating and paying rent. The prices of consumables went up 150% in some cases. 80/20 ground beef skyrocketed to $4.50/lb (now back down to around $2 - $3). Milk got as high as $3.20/gal (now back just below $2) etc. When expenses go up, for any reason, thats going to ripple back out into the cost of goods sold. The things we consume the most of, are often staffed by low wages to keep costs down. I would hate to see how much a cup of starbucks coffee costs when the cheapest employee is $15/hr. Most likely they'd cut staff and force everyone else to work 3x as hard to offset the expense, less a single cup of coffee might actually cost $15 as well.
Frankly I think the real approach should not be focused on wages (as that is a relative number and only matters in its proportional relationship to expenses), but instead focus on spending power. Driving down costs of consumables can also have an impact on someone's spending power without having to change the income ratio. This is why someone making the Peso equivalent to $20/day sounds horrible here, but there it gets them everything they need.
On the flip side, there is Bezos; who seems to get this; but also gets vilified for wanting to automate all these positions to avoid wages in order to keep the cost of consumables down. Im not a Bezo's cheerleader; but I have to admit I have benefited from many of his methods. I, and many in my area, are still in this void of not having received a pay raise since at least 2006 (sometime before things went to shit). The fact that I am now 46 working in a very technical industry only hurts my changes even further. I see fresh-out-of-college people starting out at wages most of my peers took 10+ yrs to achieve. Had it not been for this 'increase in spending power', things could have been a lot worse for us.
This makes situations like cheap Chinese manufactured goods such a difficult subject. On one side it hurts things here a lot, but on the other side, its the only thing allowing most used-to-be middle-class a shot at a secure enough lifestyle that their kids still get the stuff they need for school and can grow up somewhat unaware of the struggles people face each day.
I'm assuming they were hired specifically for this sort of out-of-the-box workarounds. You cannot turn someone into something they are not and telling them to be anything other than what they are impedes them from performing at their best when you need them to. If I was the supervisor that had been made aware of this, I would have found a way to expense payments to the vendor without letting the employee's know. 1) it keeps skills from workers you may need solidly in the 'asset' category, 2) it keeps their focus broader than the specifics of daytoday work, allowing for versatility when the times comes, and 3) this information could even be used later as leverage and blackmail.. this IS the CIA people.... lying, stealing, cheating, backstabbing is par for the course.
Not for whole foods.... you already knew, walking into the store, that every single retailer on the planet, was a cheaper buy :-). If you were looking for a cheaper choice, you would at least stop at Trader Joe's first.
or license it to brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, etc. If the licensing is enough to cover the margins Amazon gets for hosting a product, not only do they still make the profit margins they were expecting, but they dont have to expend labor and shipping in the process. It would be a legal, and unique, twist on the old mob shakedown 'fire insurance' scenario. Buy my amazon-blocking app and you'll never worry about lost sales from us.
Its a good reason to NOT ban them. Stop pretending like its going to cut down own the murder rate. It DOESNT. Thats why fucktards like you only ever quote GUN VIOLENCE statitics. Those same statistics also prove that gun bans will be MUCH more discriminatory to minorities and people of welfare than the top 1%. You cannot be that fucking retarded, its impossible. Do you seriously think your drug laws are all that fucking successful too? And yes I do think its time to get rid of those laws and re-look at that problem as well. As 100yrs of doing the same thing, without success I might add, is plenty of reason NOT to do it for 100 more years. I would guess that your also extremely young. Probably so fucking young that you do not realize that its these gun-toting-americans that save your ass year after year after year. Take a look at the standard compliment of UN Troops sometime. You seriously think your piss-ant sized country with their entire 2000 troop contribution (should have spelled it Troupe) makes for fucking anything in a real military campaign? You sound almost as bad as the french, rolling over, letting Hitler come along and fuck them in the ass... "not our art! anything but our art!". You want to do something about the murder rate? Tackle the real problem. Stop repeating something youve been told and think for yourself. This is from a former UN 'peacekeeper' thats sick and tired of being judged by the likes of those Incapable and Unwilling to mount their own defense, or even pay for it for that matter.
this was the basis of the 1930s National Firearms Act. The 1984 Hugh's amendment to said law, unfortunately, did just that. Now they do. Because one guy walked onto a playground in California with a Chinese version of an AK and killed a bunch of kids. They passed to law because they believed only an automatic weapon could commit mass casualties. Its the first of many expamples of gun laws not doing a damn thing to stop mass killing.
are these the same polls that deliberately added fake points to Hillary to solicit more votes and call a close election? Polls are as worthless as tits on a bull. One of the many Wikileaks from the DNC campain was how they used tricks to skew polls to make them look better. It was also revealed that NYT deliberately ran 3 week old poll numbers instead of recent ones because they didnt like the results.
They did not vote because many were democrats that could not bring themselves to vote for Hillary. Its not that the democrats failed to engage, but they chose 'their evil' instead of picking someone else. Not everyone goes to the polls torn between voting for the _perceived_ lesser of two evils. I would say nearly 90 million chose not to vote at all. I would also say that the media's deliberate altering of poll data in order to convince people to 'vote with the clear majority' also backfired as it got more to stay at home since 'she was already going to win'.
and 20 years of Reality TV shows were not an indication of this? This political system is nothing but a giant reality TV show. The loudest, most public faces of both parties, are more or less your Snookies and Honey Booboo's of the world. Just 2 days ago I read a NYT article citing 3 different law professors that say its impossible for Trump to obstruct an investigation by firing Comey because all investigations begin and end at his exclusive authority and therefore by ending an investigation it cannot be ruled obstruction. That sure as hell hasn't stopped the headlines in the last 2 days throwing out the impeach word again. Its a reality dog-and-pony show. Nobody is going to get impeached. Its politially advantageous to keep beating this drum and PRETENDING to do something than actually doing it. This is going to get drug out for 3.5 more years. Its all part of the show.