Eh, "highly paid" is subjective. Tech Companies got caught in this vicious cycle of inflation because of where they chose to settle, and it's self-perpetuating. We demand these high paychecks for work, or see jobs that pay six figures for whatever, and only after we get the stars out of our eyes and the dollar signs out of our gut that we realize "shit, I'm being paid $250k and the cost of living means I'm keeping less take-home now than i was when i was making $55k at Podunk High." Have friends that took jobs in Silicon Valley because "Zomg six figures" who had to downsize their homes, downsize their families, and otherwise tighten their belts because they failed to do due diligence. I really hope that in tech, telecommuting becomes more of a thing. I'll gladly work for 60-70k/year in a job that would pay double if it means I can live somewhere with a low cost of living that I enjoy living and just work from there.
You realize Scalia ruled with the majority on this one, right?
Finally! a use for my trap and skeet skills!
Came here to say this exact thing. List fails without "User" as an option...you insensitive clods.
I think both "Employment At Will' and "Right To Work" are BS covers, both looking to screw over the common worker.
Yes they are. They are also one of the biggest drivers pushing companies away from long term employment investments and towards the quick, cheap, expendable talent. It's one step up from the H1B visa worker, but not by much.
You mean, right to get fired legislation? It's one thing to give employees an option to not join a union, and another thing entirely to use it as a cover to make it easy to fire anyone for anything. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but it would be nice if we weren't so quick to champion laws that do away with employers having, you know, a good reason to fire someone.
That's like trying to remove pain, fear, or other emotions that provide a motivation to people. Unfortunately, there's no way to control the dosage finely enough through wide dispersal that it would have universal effect. Then there's the issues of whether it is morally justified forcing people to ingest chemicals without their knowledge or consent. And the issues of dealing with the inevitable adverse reactions, the unintended consequences, etc. How about people learn to stand up to the BS and force our species to do better?
Actually, if you go back and review the US code, other areas of the constitution, other legal writings and opinions from the people responsible for writing the constitution and this amendment, and the rest of the mountains of historical evidence, you'll find that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what you think it doesn't mean. Historically, in context, the People were considered to be the Militia (US Code). The constitution gave the US Government the right to call up from the Militia an army, etc; and for the states to maintain a militia. As discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/co... (and supported through other sources of linguistic study and writings of the period), the term "well-regulated" referred to something being in proper working order or well trained. So, we have these facts: 1. The people of the United States themselves were considered the main defensive body, and all (male) members of society of a certain age range were automatically considered members of the unorganized militia. 2. The Constitution in other parts indicated that the States, and the Federal Government, had the right/duty to call up from the militia a military force, and that the militia was to exist. 3. We know that in the vernacular of the time, "well regulated", as stated in the amendment, was understood to mean "in good working order". As such, and with laws down the line, it is, and has been, a right of the people to be armed. Now, we may argue that times have changed, etc. etc. This does not denigrate or otherwise contradict the existence and persistence of an individual right to keep and bear arms, and given the extensive laws in place that control the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms, said right is also well-regulated by a modern definition as well. I submit, further, that the fear over the private ownership of firearms is a topic which, due to the political nature of the discussion and the pressures of the media, has been blown greatly out of proportion. Such events such as Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. are seriously dark tragedies, and heinous crimes a la ted bundy and charlie manson. They should likewise be treated not as events decrying the "sad state of our society", as they are neither systemic nor pandemic, and instead be treated as the brutal crimes that they are, the same as any other serial killer or other major criminal escapade. When placed in context with other crimes unrelated to firearms, the frequency of such events and severity of the crimes are on par with the major spree and serial killers, rapists, etc. We have simply fetishized firearms on both sides into a totem of power, rather than viewing such things as simple tools, much as we have fetishized war and conflict to such a degree as to be an unhealthy fixation.
Yep. This has been a thing since long before Obama was in the office, and ever since there have been political points to be made around firearms. I expect they ramp it up any time they perceive a circumstance that could cause major issues, such as the violent protests that occurred during Viet Nam, during the civil rights movement, etc. etc. I think it's pretty damn well known that various agencies start looking much harder at groups when they start making waves that could upset the apple cart, and given the general unpopularity of Obama, the general attitude of some of the ultraconservatives who like to frequent gun shows, and the gullibility of some of the various nutjobs that listen to such ultraconservatives, I'm pretty damn sure they figure a little wasted manpower in keeping an eye on things is a good trade against a repeat of Tim McVeigh, etc.
When the government comes out and says anything resembling "planned", "suggested", "considered", etc., it really means that they've been doing it for decades, someone discovered something that might expose it, and they want to get ahead of the exposure in order to characterize anyone who tries to discuss it or believes it as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Companies and governments have seeded public discussion with enough chaff that they can make anyone look like an idiot if they want to, and the public's already primed to believe it.
To end one's life is a choice, and the ultimate right of all human beings. To choose to die is not a punishment, nor should it be considered such.
Seems a bit cold-hearted, don't you think? Not everything should revolve around money and achievement. Have some compassion for people dealing with stress.
Well, you can put lipstick on a pig, not sure it makes it a princess, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the act of observing the quantum behavior of the electron necessarily change it? I thought one of the fuzzy things about anything "quantum", other than "quantum bullshit", was that its state/behavior is not finite unless observed directly, thus causing it to collapse into a specific state? Or do I have that wrong?