And we will only be wealthy when we are all paid as little as possible?

Do you not get the relationship between your ex's sister and the cheap Chinese labor?

Yes, it is cheap. But unlike your sister, those dudes welding the chinese shit might just live to 35, then die, or go blind, or any of the other problems you have when there are no safety precautions.

But as long as we get our stuff cheaply, we just don't give a fuck about those people working for almost nothing. They can make stuff cheaper with their Government subsidies, and lack of regulations - "Here dear, here's your melamine, and don't forget to give the pets their's too! It's got a lot of protein, and those goddamn Americans with their expensive labor? I got this melamine spread for half the price!

But then ya don't care do ya? Fuck em all, and if some of us have to die too, at least it isn't going to those goddamned expensive Americans.

Even when I was in High school in the early 1970's it was highly discouraged for anyone with a modicum of smarts to be in anything but the academic track. When I decided to take a dual major in both academic and electronics, I was discouraged from it first by the guidance counselors, then a special meeting with the principle.

"Mike, you're such an intelligent young man. Why would you ever take a vocational curriculum?">p> But I'm taking the academic track too!

Doesn't matter. Poeple will see that vocational stuff, and ignore your academic work, because Vocational people are not intelligent.

I ignored the assholes, and it all worked out well.

So here we are, toward the end of the failed experiment of every American being a manager, every American being in service fields, and somehow miraculously, we'll manage to get along that way. with no one supporting the infrastructure of the country.

It's a sad ending when the Manager at McDonalds has the good job, with the career track.

And the rest of their employees get information on how to apply for Government assistance. because they are paid so little.

You figure out how long a country can exist like this. Today, Henry Ford would be castigated, not for his well documented weirdness, but that he believed that the people working for him should be well paid. One of the world's foremost industrialists would be condemned today as a socialist, when he was just imbued with the knowledge that in order to sell things, people had to have the money to buy things.

There is a clue in there.

I was commentint regarding the "Mac" Comment.

If we want to being it back to Android phone users? You are not seriously saying they are all or mostly competent? The only common thread I've found s that the lowliest Android phone user knows only one thing. He, by using android, is better and more adroit that anyone using anything put out by Apple.

Which is sort of like the Hillbillies on reality TV expounding on how they are smarter than anyone else. While trying to do shit grade school kids do.

You haven't experienced anything until youve had a whacker who has no expeience other than web surfing, texting, and diling the phone, looking down upon you because he has a Samsung, while you have an iPhone.

Doesn't matter that you program, have high proficiency in the innards many platforms, (including Android) He just knows he is a lot smarter than you. And only because you use an iPhone. Ford versus Chevy idiocy, argued by the rednecks down at the corner gas.

In many states, 911 calls are encouraged to report drunk drivers. This may or may not be what prompted her to call. As events unfolded, it would be a completely plausible reason.

As for the veracity of her call, if she thought th deriver was impaired, and called, and the officers found that the guy was apparently baked, everything else would have followed. Herveracity would have been proven. I don't know about the rest of everyone, but when anyone gets a call from me, they see my number, and my name. Probably the same for most people who don't take measures to block that information.

No one wants turned into the police maliciously. This isn't even close to that, so IMO, this is more about the legality of tipping the police off to a bad situation than privacy or some due process violation.

Such things certainly aren't good. Owned houses have been demolished by mistake when it was supposed to be the house in forclosure next door. Police have gotten things wrong - and in your example of anonymous tips, they can come from regular non-anonymouse tips.

I get just as angry as you do when that happens, and believe in full accountability, and criminal prosecutions and jail time if warranted.

But we don't even seem to have a normal false dichotomy here. What are the options if you know a crime is being committed? 911 lines are anything but anonymous. They know who is calling, and even if you're using a burner, they know where you are calling from.

I can't imagine anyone not knowg this, so I guess that people are arguing for the elimination of any sort of tips.

So what you are saying is that you do not really know how to read very well?

Dude was stoned (allegedly) Exchange the ganja bake for Ethanol fueled intoxication, and tell me the difference.

Then I demand you produce the evidence that she wasn't. This is silly to demand that I produce evidence, so let's not go down that road.

Perhaps he didn't run her off, but now you have to produce some sort of sane argumemnt that a stoned guy was randomly selected by a lying woman just to screw with him.

You do know that making a false report on 911 is a crime, don't you?

Specious, and you would need the transcript of the trial to answer that question. The story isn't about where they went, and isn't even relevant to the thrust of the story, which is if people are allowed to call 911 to report crime. The perp's layer is arguing that since the tip came from an anonymous source, it was invalid. Since it was not anonymous The argument's main premise was not valid.

911 calls are recorded and used as evidence all the time. When reporting a crime, the 911 center does not make the person swear on a bible that they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But they are still used as evidence.

As for her continued anonymity, they could certainly retrieve that information, and use voiceprints to confirm that it was indeed her making the phone call. Did they? I dunno, you'd need the transcripts of the trial.

You missed the part about smelling the whacky tabaccy in the vehicle. Maybe the dude wasn't stoned. Maybe he was.

So what you have is a pseudo anonymous tip from a person who was allegedly run off the road, and the tip led to a allegedly stoned guy with a lot of weed. There is a good bit of credibility here, and a remarkable set of circumstances would have to be in play for it not to be credible - see below. The only thing missing was cameras on her car. It is surprising that more people do not have cameras on their cars today.

Otherwise, the perp's lawyer wouldn't be trying to use the specious cloak of anonymity card. Real reasons to think there was some hanky panky going on would be if the defense had knowledge of the caller, (which would be unforgivably incompetent if they didn't attempt to access that) and she knew the perp, and had some reason why she would make a fraudulent and illegal call to 911. Revenge, hatred, prank gone bad, nasty divorce, that kind of stuff. Now you are looking at a probably successful appeal process. They were just down to desperation moves.

While the short answer might be yes, the officers will know pretty quickly, without ransacking your house, that you don't have a meth lab. At that point, the not really anonymous caller will be arrested and charged with filing a false report. You will also have civil actions against the perp. Their life has for all practical purposes been destroyed, and the evidence is solid.

Making false reports has been around forever. Using a modern phone to do that will document your crime, and will probably be the first piece of evidence

So what you are saying is that you do not think it should be legal to report drunk drivers? For Christ's sakes, this guy ran the woman off the road, was under the influence, and on slashdot - she is the bad guy. Now I want you to defend your statement. No one is anonymous on the phone, and your proposition that people shouldn't be allowed to call in crimes is only valid in slashdot world, where I swear half the posters need to stop watching the History2 channel for a few weeks.

Fortunately no conservative constructs have ever been abused... couldn't resist - back to the topic

In some cases, it was much worse before. In the 1980's, at the place where I worked, we had our first gender harassment seminars.

It quickly turned surreal. Your example of how the woman dresses was spot-on. The gender harassment rep told us that it was very dangerous to compliment a woman regarding any physical matter. That telling her "Those earrings are nice" was okay, but saying you look great in those earrings was skirting the edges of harassment.

Then when a man asked what the definition of sexual harassment was, she said "Sexual harassment is whatever a woman says it is". You could have heard the proverbial pin drop.

This draconian interpretation started a years long mess, where the men actively avoided all the women. Male supervisors would not engage 1 on 1 with female staff - there would always be at least one other person. Men quit talking to or socializing with women.

And the women absolutely hated it. Some of the ladies I worked with were dirty minded and flirtacious enough to make me blush some times, and the men were avoiding them like the plague.

One of the machinists had a nice photo of a young lady in a cheerleader outfit on his toolbox. A woman took offense to it, and he was told to take it down. It was his daughter. The pathetic part was this estrangement only alienated normal guys. The men who were actually harassing women still did all the same things, blocking doorways so the woman had to brush up against them, "accidentally" touching them in the places you might expect, they just kept on keepin' on.

Fortunately, calmer, more rational heads saw what had been created, and modified the rules. Instead of treating all men as rapists who just hadn't been caught yet, they focused on the guys - and women who were the real problem.

In the end, it did help, although a lot of the older guys were pretty set in their ways, and never did socilize much with the female staff.

I brought up the question one time, if a man avoids all contact with women in the workplace - except for the minimum to get work done - in order to not be accused of harassment, and the women know he avoids them because of that, is his avoidance sexual harassment?

This is beginning to sound like a job for Powdered Toast Man.

A Nickel-Metal Hydride mouse?

Dude, you should use Litioum Ion batteries in that thing!

Are you ready for your children to not have living Grandparents? Are you ready to be in your declining years, dependent upon them when they are trying to raise their own families.

And finally, if there is one thing that I have discovered about those who delay - Money is number one. Your self centeredness is number two. Children alomst never think of money. Yours will probably find it to be the metric of your love.

Then again, you might be the exception.

You sound like my sisters, and my wife's brothers and sister.

In both cases, they tossed off any responsibility for any of our parents, who managed to all die off within 7 years. So it was my wife and I who cared for them.

Anyhow, the siblings were surprised when my wife and I got the lion's share of all the inheritances.

The irony is that I'd told all the parents that I didn't like dead people's money, and our siblings are all about money.

Perhaps your parents will end up feeling the same about you.