I respectfully disagree. Children should be tolerated in theaters as they must learn proper social skills. They can't be kept at home all the time in the fear that they'll disturb other people...they'd never develop socially.

Please be patient with parents that are attempting to enjoy a good time with their families.

While some parents deserve to be shot for ignoring the child screaming or talking or otherwise causing an extended raucous, some parents are doing what needs to be done (i.e. completely ignoring certain behavior if the purpose of said behavior is for attention).

I certainly understand your point, but would encourage you to be patient with children and parents. If you consider your enjoyment of a movie more important than helping a given child's social development....well maybe you were kept at home too much as a child. :-)

Brad

This reminds me of the star trek episode where these genetically enhanced children had an immune system that could not only fight off infection within themselves, but also seek out and destroy any infectious agents in the vicinity. Of course these super-immune systems went haywire. It started attacking regular people causing them to age at an advanced rate.

I can't think of any console that offered a processor upgrade off the top of my head (the Jaguar maybe?).

Sega 32X

Currently, If you dial 911 on any cellular phone in the US it will use any network it can see, regardless of the carrier or owner of the tower. An AT&T phone will use T-Mobile towers for 911 calls without hesitation, etc. Unless the "emergency" calls you spoke of were people calling their girlfriends to make sure they were OK....in which case, yes...your point stands.

You sir, have just described every type of regulated currency in existence. It isn't that *our* system is broken or poorly conceived, it is that in order for one person to have something ( home, car, air conditioned beach), someone else must be without the materials that went into creating it. This is where currency comes in. I will trade you these paper notes for your time, materials, etc...Thus I'm in debt to you, but I'm giving you these universal IOUs that you can then use to get a commensurate level of time, materials, etc... from anyone else. I've seen the You-Tube video that describes America's currency system as 'debt-based' as well, and some points are valid. But the idea that the system is "fundamentally-flawed" is incorrect. It is the only way to continuously grow an economy indefinitely. Fixed asset (gold-standard, etc...) systems will eventually become systems in which a select few will possess all the money in the world while the rest grovel at their feet, or revolt and take it back.

For all intents and purposes, "intensive purposes" is and never has been a saying, unless you are in the ICU at a hospital.

In my mind it is very clear.

What did the employee agree to as a condition of their hire?

If they agreed to start getting paid when their time-tracking software finally started, or when they logged in to the queue in the soft-phone, that is how they should get paid. If this was not clearly specified during the interview process, it should be considered the employee's responsibility to clarify.

I'm tired of hearing the nanny-state mentality of protecting people from their own inability to understand the caveats and details of an agreement they entered into of their own free-will.

If I sign a cellular contract that states "billing will start when you hit the send key, not when the call connects", well then I should expect that to happen. If it does not state when billing starts, I should clarify it with the cellular carrier before entering into the contract, and if that issue is important to me, make a determination AFTER I know the entirety of the policy.

I'm sure I'll be modded down for my anti-socialist views by some, but its got to stop. The government has NO place telling an employer when to start and stop paying you. That is a private contract, and the US Constitution clearly states "No State shall [create a] law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." source. Employment is a mutually agreed private contract.

And yes, before anyone asks, I do believe that minimum wage laws interfere with the free negotiation and establishment of work contracts. If my employer wants to give me a home, a car, food, electricity, etc, but only pay me $3.00/hr, it SHOULD BE MY RIGHT to accept that offer. If accepting that offer is a bad decision, so be it...at least its MY decision.

Our governments (state and federal) should have no business attempting to protect people from their own stupidity.

Brad