My point was that they could have a higher workload placed upon them. Even if that's not a significant problem, I would caution against kneejerk "fire the bum" judgements.

Maybe. Maybe not. I would love to be able to work uninterrupted. That's something people at my company don't understand. They think you can just call up a developer at every whim, and they're pretty much right. The only part they don't get is that the developer cannot work in five-minute spurts. If I had the option to tune all that out and only deal with requests and inane soul-shattering bullshit on regular intervals, then I would probably be more productive and less bitter. And then there is the issue of time spent driving. Even a short commute could net you 30 minutes to an hour on the road, especially if the employee has to eat out for lunch.

I'll agree that that is a problem, but it always was. Now, it's just exaggerated.

Or they were working 50+ or 60+ hours before, and now they're getting more done in the same amount of time. Or, they accomplish the same amount in the time they're working, but they spend more time working because their bosses confuse "working from home" with "always on call".

I can see that. You have to "cheat" every now and then.

The only problem there is that Big Macs are over 500 calories each, and high in sodium. You would probably be better off replacing one of the burgers with apples, a fruit and walnut salad, or a side salad. I typically would order either a grilled chicken bacon ranch salad, or a snack wrap, side salad, and (sometimes) apple dipper. The three items together fall in the around 500 calorie range.

I'm just now realizing that I eat at McDonald's too damn much.

Not a vegetarian, but my wife is (sort of), and she was mentioning how bad Hardy's/Carl's Jr is. I think she got a cheese quesadilla, but that was it.

They do offer light Italian and balsamic vinaigrette dressings that clock in at about 60 calories (too lazy to look it up right now). Add chicken, cheese and bacon (standard on their more 'generic' large salad), and it is around 450 calories. People like to bash McDonald's, but their healthy options aren't that bad.

Chrisq posted a comment that may answer your questions. http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2828005&cid=39887513.

Praising religion for the monuments is like praising the mafia for inspiring good movies.

Of course the guy who says "x is a problem, let's do something about it" is going to benefit when people start listening. Your two examples are:

1. Someone proposes and implements a free market solution - That asshole! He's trying to profit from this.
2. someone proposes a government solution - Those assholes! They're putting people who believe it exists in charge of preventing it!

Just try to think about it the other way for a second. If this were a problem and you honestly wanted to do something about it, how would you do so, without it either making money, making you famous, making some other person famous, making some other person money, giving more control to some people, or taking control from others?

Once you can find a way to do it in a completely selfless manner that inconveniences no one, then you can complain about the conspiracies started by "alarmists".

Have you ever considered the possibility that you got downmodded because you conflate acceptance of man-made global warming with "an attempt to dismantle civilization"?

Guilt is one hell of a control device. It keeps the flock coming back. It creates an insurmountable gap between them and the secular world, and makes for one hell of a slippery slope argument. After all, the people who ask too many questions seem to have no problem with sex, masturbation, gluttony, drinking or drug use. If that's what they're doing today, imagine how much worse they'll be in 20 years.

Hi. I'm the other liberal in Tennessee. Nice to meet you.

You must be a blast at parties. Tell me when you're headlining at the Apollo. Just don't tell the audience "you people aren't smart enough to recognize a good joke"...They may not take it well.

No. I really don't care too much about Zimmerman or Martin. I don't care if Martin really attacked Zimmerman, and I definitely don't care if he had cornrows, gold teeth, tattoos, and gangsta poses. What I care about is, how far does the law let you go? Did Martin know that Zimmerman was leaving? Did he overhear the conversation Zimmerman was having? Did he know Zimmerman had a gun, or that he wasn't going to his car to get one? Is it ok to follow someone in the name of "standing your ground"? I've argued with coworkers about whether you can shoot someone in the back in self-defense (someone locally go charged with "assault" because they shot a home intruder several times in the back while he was running away).

This is what I dislike about the SYG law, as people in the media have been portraying it. The word "aggressor" has been diluted to the point where you don't have to be attacking someone, or even looking in their general direction. You just have to look threatening.

And, yes, I can agree that it is complicated.

Wasn't Martin standing his ground? He was walking down the street, unarmed, when he noticed some stranger following him. He may not have known that Zimmerman was armed, but he (Zimmerman) was obviously up to something. Martin may have even tried to escape. (Considering that he was walking away from Zimmerman, it's hard to say if and when his behavior went from "walking home from the store" to "trying to get away from stalker").

So, under the interpretation of SYG being tossed around, didn't Martin have the right to defend himself?