I think I know where you work, as my company has the exact same setup. I'm waiting for the first month of LOAs to pass so I can see if they got their unemployment approved or not before deciding to take May off as an LOA.

I made them up out of my head as what I consider to be a "worst case" percentage of people abusing the system. I believe the number would be closer to 1% in actual practice.

The $1200/mo is a number I pulled out of my ass for this example. It's not meant to be used to set any kind of policy. If minimum wage were say, $15/hr, assuming an 40 hour work week would be approx $2400/mo or ~$29k/yr.

Ideally, it would follow something like the following model:

Each tax paying adult gets $1200/mo (or do it as a minimum wage equivalent) and is removed from social service programs that they are currently enrolled in.

Each child gets $500/mo to be put into a trust in the child's name, with an additional $500/mo in "cash" so the parents can support that child.

When the child turns 18, they are handed the keys to their trust and they start out life with enough money to support them while they either look for a job, can get an apartment or a home, and/or pay for college.

This won't put up anyone in any kind of luxury lifestyle, but would encourage people who want more, the opportunity to work to pay for the luxuries.

I've known plenty of people who are in poverty, and almost universally, they want to get to of that state, but 90% of their time is working multiple jobs to just meet their current obligations, let alone extra to give them the freedom to seek further training so they can get a better job which pays more.

Now certainly there are going to be people who will simply stop working, or will try to abuse the system, but we have that now, so I don't believe those numbers will increase. Even if 5% of people simply stop working, it props up the remaining 95% so they aren't starving to death and/or are homeless.

I think that anyone who argues that because _someone might_ abuse the system, or that it isn't perfect, that it should't be implemented. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done about anything. Ever.

Lefterer!

He is saying, in the context of this article, that the attempt to appeal to "god" with the bible quote, isn't valid in the overall context of the discussion because there is no "god" in the star trek universe, so he appealed to an authority that does not exist, once again, in the context of this discussion.

"Why does 'God' need a starship?"

Don't buy a Samsung. Get a pixel 4. That's as stock as it gets, and they are able to be unlocked. If you get rid of all the samsung crap on your phone, that's basically what you'll end up with anyways.

The part that you seem to be missing is that they could offer "opt-out" internet plans for $500/mo or opt-in for $50/mo. Hence the limit put into the bill to limit how they market their plans. Unless there were some specified "no more than a 5% price difference between opt-in and opt-out plans", the ISPs would price your privacy out of reach so you would have no choice but to opt-in.

so run against them.

I had a video like that. Recording a product demo, and there was a radio running in the background, almost inaudible. The video was flagged and the "copyright holder" of the song on the radio decided to monetize MY video because it contained about 10 seconds of their audio. I disputed the infringement and it was denied. I therefore removed the audio from that portion of the video. Fuck them.

The context of the conversation was people who are being told to plea, even if they're innocent, since, if they actually want to go to trial, they're going to pile on the charges to "punish" you for wasting their time since you didn't take the plea and _something_ is going to stick.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

"Plea deals do not undermine a fair trial. It's a means for the courts to manage a limited and burdened service."

That is such bullshit. A plea deal, whereby someone is offered a reduced sentence even when they are not guilty, in order to "manage a limited and burdened service" instead of being told that you're going to "have the book thrown at you" for not taking the plea, is the worst possible outcome of the "justice" system in the USA. If that many people are being told to plea rather than get a fair trial, than something is seriously wrong with the system.

Correctly labeled as spam. Dude, you basically submitted a story with a bible verse as it's main content.

Ahh, we come in peace (shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill) We come in peace (shoot to kill, shoot to kill men)