KRC

You are just upset that nobody posted Wiggles wallpaper.

You said you wanted wallpaper for your work space. How are we supposed to interpret your statement?

You are correct. I do not see it getting through Congress, however, because both parties have too much at stake through the current system. If you employ a consumption tax, you will be taking away "issues" from campaigns (class warfare, etc).

Works for me. Sounds like the fairest system out there. BTW, are you paying attention to Arthur Farnsworth's case in Bucks County? I am guessing that he will still B word about this unless there is a SPECIFIC law dictating that these taxes are to be paid on goods.

Hey, like I told Darin, I am having a bad day.

They are not following. They can't afford to follow. They know that it is a recipe for financial ruin to follow the U.S. lead. I have managed projects on every continent except Antarctica, and it has been proven that you can safely complete the project without all of the crap you get in the U.S. Yes, you will have places that would give an OSHA inspector a heart attack, but there is still a middle ground where projects can be done safely without resorting to the crap we have here. The difference is, that the foreign companies have realized that people need to take responsibility for their actions. Here, people feel like they are entitled to be stupid and they will get a large check for their efforts.

How is this a personal attack against you? Did you eat paint and snort cleaning supplies?

Isolationist policies do not work. It is akin to "treating the symptoms instead of the problem." We can't compete with the world, so we will just prevent everyone from accessing the world so that we do not need to change. A recipe for disaster.

But we are going too far the other way. As Darin mentioned, the staggering amount of regulation in this country is killing off businesses and increasing the costs of our products. How the hell can U.S. companies stay in business when they are forced to spend countless dollars on lawyers writing such phrases as: "Product will be hot after heating" on food products "Do not spray in eyes" on cleaning products All because people refuse to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

I am having a bad day today with that, aren't I?

...or sitting on a railing where you could potentially fall back and get injured. Of course, if you made the railing 42" high, you would have a greater fall and have an increased risk of causing bodily harm. Of course, the railing could be lowered, but then you could injure yourself by tripping over it.

Which increases the cost of the final product which is passed on to the consumer. Why the hell should I pay more to protect the stupid people from themselves?

According to the article, a fence was put up. The idiots still got around it. It gets down to personal responsibility after that. Why should the parking garage put even more money into it?

That decision is on you. Yes, they can terminate early if they desire. Hopefully, they will see that you are trying to help them and they keep you on, but once the person is trained, they really do not need you and may make the proper business decision by letting you go. IMO, give them the two weeks notice and tell them that you will work on a contract basis beyond that to train the new person. You make some money and the company can still use your expertise in the interim.

Sorry if I incorrectly attributed those thoughts to you. You are correct in the fact that you point out the slippery slope in the other direction. It will be interesting to see how lawyers argue cases in the future, using this precedent.

I disagree. This is one of those slippery slope thingies. Now that the Supreme Court has made this decision, it opens up arguments for what I am saying. If minors are incapable of fully understanding their actions and cannot be given the death penalty, then how can you punish them for any crime? The same argument can be made: they did not understand the ramifications of their actions. I cannot see how you can say that they do not understand the ramifications of their actions when it comes to the death penalty, but if the death penalty is not involved then they understand the ramifications of their actions.

So, getting back to my other argument, should anyone under the age of 18 be exempt from prosecution of ANY crime since they "lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility?"

I did some checking and asphalt was invented before the car but roads existed before asphalt. Asphalt Thingy

Sorry.

Yup. The car was invented before asphalt.

To what extent? You can bankrupt your company or make your products so unbelieveably expensive that you price yourself out of the market. At some point, people need to take responsibility for their actions.

Do we take it to the extreme, and say that anyone under 18 cannot be convicted of ANY crime? Anything from traffic tickets to murder must be eliminated because they are not competent enough to understand what they are doing. It is obvious from the Simmons case that people under the age of 18 can fully understand what they are doing.

Ummm...we had roads before asphalt was invented.

They probably feel pretty good, knowing the amount of exposure they would receive by being on the last episode.

Some call it dangerous. Others call it Natural Selection. It reminds me of a quote: "You can try to make something idiot-proof, but the world will always build a better idiot." You can install a fence, but they will still try to find a way around it. Regardless of what you impliment, they will find a way around it.