If we waited for perfection, no one would ever have kids. Just saying. And I was offered 3 months time with my kids... So I understand. It was in no way paid, but it was there. My choice to work for a company that isn't run by fucking retards who care only about money at the expense of others (Not saying business is a bad thing, but most businesses don't "live within their means" so they can provide actual benefits to the employees, you know, the job creators?)

>> ^gorillaman:

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo
We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.
Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.
If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.
It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.

>> ^gorillaman:

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo
We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.
Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.
If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.
It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.


You're not dealing with reality...you're thinking idyllically. You can't tell people "Don't have kids unless you have enough money" it won't work. So instead the society has to do something to make the situation better for all involved if it considers having children a positive thing for the society.

Also your comparison of taking 3 months off for a hobby rather than a child...is exactly the problem with some people. Please give this more study.

EDIT: Also "Incentivising" isn't something that's in play here. Unless you're figuring that a woman says to herself "Man I want a few months off of work...I should just get preggers." We have data from other countries that "Incentivize" a lot more than that, you can look that up but I haven't heard of French women doing anything of the sort...and it's kind of ridiculous to suggest they would.

@razzyl @Yogi and to a substantially lesser extent @packo

We should not be encouraging people to live beyond their means.

Anyone embarking on as expensive and time-consuming a project as parenthood should be prepared for the costs involved. We're not living in so technologically primitive a condition that effective birth control mechanisms are beyond any of us. Given that, it's not unreasonable to expect that we plan for our children in a rational and responsible way.

If I decided for personal reasons to take three months off work to, say build a hot rod or bicycle around asia, I wouldn't ask anybody else to cover the cost. These are individual choices and they require individual investment. Your reward for raising a child is whatever genetic and emotional fulfilment, and the price you pay is hundreds of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours of work. If that's not a bargain you're willing to make then don't. Nobody's forcing you, least of all your boss who only wants you to show up for work so that together you can cooperatively better yourselves and society.

It's precisely because I value our species' future that I oppose incentivising excessive population growth. Globally we're oversubscribed on resources and running up debts we may never be able to repay. Our economies are predicated on a perpetual growth incline that is literally physically impossible. These calamities need to be taken in hand, and it's time to put our instinctive urge to flood the world with progeny behind us.

That's not unreasonable, it didn't have time to put on its face and clean - and there you are, with a camera....

LOL. Way to stick it to the man.

Ask silly question. "Because I'm R$CH, bitches!"

>> ^Deano:

>> ^antonye:
Just in case you didn't know, this guy earns £125,000 (approx $200,000) a week. A WEEK. FFS!

There's a brilliant story about him when he got stopped by the police for some traffic infraction I think.
They find several thousand pounds in cash on him and query why a young man is wandering about with this kind of money (perhaps not unreasonably).
His response? "It's because I am rich!" (I paraphrase)

>> ^antonye:

Just in case you didn't know, this guy earns £125,000 (approx $200,000) a week. A WEEK. FFS!


There's a brilliant story about him when he got stopped by the police for some traffic infraction I think.
They find several thousand pounds in cash on him and query why a young man is wandering about with this kind of money (perhaps not unreasonably).

His response? "It's because I am rich!" (I paraphrase)

I love how they are running this ZOMG he's trying to lower minimum wage campaign against this guy.

Most states DO have a lower than minimum wage for people earning primarily tips. In many states it is like $2/hr or something. So it's not unreasonable that they do this. Waitstaff probably is making like $15/hr compared to the cooks who DO make minimum wage. And the real issue is that it is all tax-free or like 60%-80% of the tips go unreported, depending on how much is in cash.

Your pizzaria guy is just a jerk. Yes minimum wage did go up, do he is paying more.. But in reality he was paying way too little for like 10 years. So, yes minimum wage goes up in step functions while cost of living and inflation go up linearly. So for like 5 years min wage employees are getting screwed and for like 2 or 3 years employers are paying more than "usual". But no, jerkoff pizza guy didn't magically have to shell out extra thousands of dollars. (which is probably like 1/2 the profit from a few weeks)

@blankfist: First of all, unions for civil servants need to protect their employees from bad management. You can't fire a civil servant, but their bosses can, as long as they've shown they have a good reason for terminating the employee (when they have a union).

Secondly, I'm not defending this cop's actions. But before he is terminated and possibly brought up on assault charges, he is still entitled to fair representation. It's what this country's legal system is founded upon, n'est-ce pas? So why can't workers be entitled to it in the work place?

Now I believe that law enforcement internal investigations should be open to the public, which unfortunately they are not in most jurisdictions (maybe all of them, for all I know). Just like our courts, they need to be open, especially when it comes to law enforcement issues. So basically I'm saying the system needs to be overhauled. That doesn't mean that unions need to be cut out of the process. True, they advocate for the worker, even when they do wrong. But just like the courts, as long as the truth is presented then hopefully justice will prevail, even if that involves terminating the employee.

I'm a union member, and I used to be VP of my local for a while. I remember when I went to our national convention back in 2002 I attended a seminar headed by the national VP in which he discussed grievance procedures for employee terminations and our success rates. Our union is usually pretty damn successful when it comes to grieving terminations, he said, but we can't win them all. He then went on to say that most of the cases we lose are just as well, because the vast majority of those are justifiable, and we don't want shitbirds in the ranks making all of us look bad. So we're not unreasonable.

>> ^dag:
@shepppard- completely disagree with you on this one. A laptop computer becomes an extension of your personal space. The guy with the goatee who likes to take pictures of the kids is just creepy as all get-out. Is he the principal?? He reminds me of the guy who bags my groceries.
edit: The linked BoingBoing article says it well: "But when schools take that personal information, indiscriminately invading privacy (and, of course, punishing students who use proxies and other privacy tools to avoid official surveillance), they send a much more powerful message: your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it."


First some fast facts about internet and computer use at schools:

-Most of the computers being used in schools today were obtained with some kind of grant money
-The high speed internet is also often funded through grants and eve if it isnt it's subject to regulations designated by the state
---Grant money always comes with strict guidelines, if you violate the terms of the grant your school could be forced to pay the money back and possibly be fined in addition to repayment

As someone who is a volunteer member of the technology committee (I get a certificate and everything) at my school, I can testify on behalf of what this school is doing. The grant that funds the internet at my school for example comes with stipulations that the internet is not to be used on social networking sites, video streaming sites (yes youtube is blocked per our grant), pornographic sites, etc. If there is traffic to said sites and there isn't reasonable attempts to block this activity, the aforementioned consequences would go into effect (probably only in an absolute egregious violation of the terms of the grant but it's possible).

All that being said, the internet and the computers dont belong to the kids, they belong to the state or they are bound by the grant that furnished them. It's not unreasonable to monitor the students as they work and make sure they're on task and not looking at anything they shouldn't be.

I didn't see this guy open the camera application in the background and "spy" on anyone. The kids sign a technology agreement before htey can use the internet and the computers. That agreement stipulates exactly what they can and cannot do while they should be working.

Moreover it's the duty of the technology personnel to make sure funding for the school isn't at risk because some 16 year old posts something ridiculous to their facebook page. I'm sure you all would be just as outraged if some kids posted suggestive photos of themselves online (far fetched right???) and then you found out GHASP they posted it while they were at school!!! "Where were the teachers!!?!? Isn't the technology staff doing anything to protect these innocent children!??!"

The whole thing about him taking pictures though is a bit weird. That, and that alone is what crossed the line in this video in my humble opinion.


EDIT__________________________________________________________________________

I didnt read the video description (dumb of me) ok, slight change in my opinion, yes, the computers issued to the students are property of the state and should be subject to monitoring but remotely activating hte webcam is crossing the line. If you look at a kids screen and he has it on, i say it's fair game (fair game meaning you could perhaps stipulate that the webcam shouldn't be used altogether but it's inappropriate for the administration to make discipline decisions based on what's being viewed in the camera unless two conditions were met, 1) the kid turned it on not anyone monitoring, and 2) The student was in some kind of danger (ie doing blow off his mousepad).

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^Xax:
It's not unreasonable for any airline to be concerned about the comfort of their passengers.

Rubbish. If airlines were concerned about the confort of their passengers they wouldn't make the seats so cramped and have such little legroom in the first place, never mind other issues like food, inadequate air exchange, cramped toilets, narrow aisles... The balance between passenger comfort and company profit is weighed heavily toward the "company profit" end.

There are other factors that effect how comfortable passengers are, of course, but if other passengers are going to make customers uncomfortable, that's an easy thing to fix that doesn't cost the airline significantly.

>> ^Xax:
It's not unreasonable for any airline to be concerned about the comfort of their passengers.

Rubbish. If airlines were concerned about the confort of their passengers they wouldn't make the seats so cramped and have such little legroom in the first place, never mind other issues like food, inadequate air exchange, cramped toilets, narrow aisles... The balance between passenger comfort and company profit is weighed heavily toward the "company profit" end.

I'm not sure I'm with Kevin on this one. I believe he claimed that he wasn't making the person next to him physically uncomfortable, but who's to say that was really the case? It's not unreasonable for any airline to be concerned about the comfort of their passengers.

Now, I know Kevin said he normally buys 2 seats, which is thoughtful of him. But it also shows that he knows 1 seat isn't enough room for him, so I don't know that he has any right to complain.

You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.
At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.
I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.
In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?
FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.
I ask you sir...
srsly?

I did read your post and yes, it does discredit the video, but it brings up other questions just as absurd.

The protocol was never been to shoot down any civilian aircraft that deviates from flight plans and doesn't respond to hails. That is absolutely false and you know it. That policy may have been tightened and changed since these events, but before 9/11 there is no way that the government would shoot down a commercial airliner for those reasons. The simple fact is that no one knew what was going on and where these planes were headed until it was too late.

Like I said before, things were absolutely chaotic that day and people were trying to use their best judgment based on what information they had, which was minimal at best. Watch any of the excellent Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel documentaries about that day and you'll see how little people had to go on. It is easy to look with hindsight and second guess what people should have done, but in the moment, things are not that simple.

Dick Cheney had no say regarding shooting down anything, so I'm not sure why you are going after him, aside from your obvious anger. Belief in conspiracy theories are so dangerous because they essentially become like a religion: people believe what they believe because they believe it and nothing can persuade them otherwise once they have decided to believe. Even a "moderate" conspiracy theorist like yourself must realize that you have no real evidence to back up your claims, especially claims that the government was complicit, passively or otherwise.

>> ^IronDwarf:
The answer to nearly all of those questions would be something to the effect of that day was utterly chaotic and the US was grossly unprepared for an attack of that kind. Other questions like "Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants?" don't even make sense to ask after the fact. The things that happened that day happened because the people flying those planes made it happen that way.
I'm sorry, but anyone who actually buys into any of this conspiracy bullshit is not looking at all of the material available and is either purposefully or unknowingly keeping themselves ignorant. I know these videos can be persuasive, but they are not giving you all the information; they are picking and choosing what fits their particular theory. For example, I felt like I knew for a certainty what had happened on November 22, 1963 after watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", but after reading more about it I realized the theory was complete shit, no matter how well made and persuasive the movie was.


You clearly didn't read my post. The site I listed discredits the video. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't hold it past Dick Cheney to knowingly allow this to happen. The flight hit the pentagon almost an hour after the flights hit the towers. Protocol is to scramble and shoot down any civilian flight off its flight path and that isn't responding to hails, particularly if it is headed towards a high valued military target. For Dick Cheney that should be an easy call. If it wasn't, I seriously question whether he was qualified to be in that position.

At the very least, the south side of the building should have been evacuated as the target was moving in, not after.

I agree the question you pulled out is bullshit, but questions about exactly what orders were given to whom, when, are not unreasonable questions. These are even more relevant if what we'd like to understand how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

I'm not willfully ignorant as you imply. I won't entertain fantastic stories about fly overs, or detonation squads. I just wouldn't hold it past these particular assholes to allow something like this to happen. They didn't need to do anything active, just don't give the order to fire.

In my mind... the "truthers" are getting paid/encouraged/coverage in order to keep the heat off the real question of was the negligence criminal or plain vanilla incompetence?

FDNY and all that... but the chickenhawk, neocons can go to hell. The fact of the matter is we've spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job than we have the largest attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor, accusations of human rights abuses, and unconstitutional expansions of executive power by the previous administration.

I ask you sir...
srsly?

The patient in the back was not in fact suffering from heat exhaustion. According to the paramedic's report, his professional opinion was that she was suffering from emergency cardiac problems.

Lights and sirens are not generally used for transporting patients with heart troubles. They have a nasty tendency to exacerbate them.


>> ^joedirt:
Technically the ambulance had NO lights or sirens and entered in intersection with a cop with sirens, and then proceeded not to pull over. However after they should have just proceeded to escort ambulance and then deal with them at hostpital.


That's not what happened. The police car did not have its siren running--just its lights. According to all the reports filed, it pulled up behind the ambulance at a very high speed and kept pace with it three feet from the rear bumper. The police car had approached too quickly for the ambulance driver to have noted his approach, and given the boxy shape of an ambulance, it's impossible for the driver to see someone so close. (This is also why you don't pull up that close behind semi-trucks, as well.) The first the driver saw the cruiser was when it whipped around the ambulance and passed.

The police cruise had been en route to assist another officer, but the situation was apparently resolved before they arrived; a couple of miles later, the cruiser pulled the ambulance over. It was not unreasonable at all for the paramedics to assume that there was some sort of emergency in the cruiser itself; it is not standard practice to pull over ambulances. Instead, the procedure is to contact the operator to find out what hospital the ambulance is going to and meet them there.

The rest is on the video.