Azalin

I used to work at Transit Lanes when I was 19-20 years old. Every Friday around 10am the manager would give me the money to deposit for the payroll. I would walk past the strip plaza and across a parking lot to the bank, would make the deposit, then walk back to the bowling alley. One day I arrived at the bank, but when I tried to enter, the door was locked. I tried the other door, but that was locked too. The hours on the door very plainly said 9am-5pm, and I could very plainly see people inside. Then I noticed one of the employees was waving her arms over her head, shaking her head back & forth, and gesturing for me to leave, which I did. As I was walking back to the bowling alley, a car sped past me coming from the direction of the bank, blew through the parking lot, and took off down Transit road. I wasn't a particularly perceptive teenager apparently, because I hadn't put two and two together when I returned to the manager and returned the cash for the payroll. She said that she'd call the bank and see what was up. About a half an hour later, the manager came to me with three extremely intimidating men in suits who worked for the FBI, and told me that the bank was in the process of being robbed while I was trying to get in. The agents showed me a couple of surveillance photos of the thieves, but I never got a look at them, but I was able to verify the car in the photo as the one that drove right past me. I never heard anything more about it, and from then on they started using an armed guard service to pick up & deliver the payroll.

I honestly don't know what the trade-off of skilled to unskilled jobs will be in either the short term or long. Based on the progress and growth we've experienced since the beginning of the industrial age, I see no reason to believe that job availability will be affected by automation much differently than it has been in the past. It sounds to me as if he's only focused on the negative side and not acknowledging the subsequent gains in employment from new vocations. Consider the job losses in petroleum and mining when we finally develop a more profitable alternative to fossil fuels. That will be huge, but there will also be an entirely new field of energy production that will take it's place. The loss on one end is a gain on the other.

I'm not overlooking it, I'm ignoring it. I was going to reply to Dev's last comment, but the truth of it is that none of us know with any certainty what secondary and tertiary jobs will be created by replacing someone taking food orders with a machine. Will the OS be written by people in India? Maybe, maybe not. Americans will get the job if they're of equal skill and their service is competitively priced. Will Serbs monitor the network? Who knows? Again, are Americans able - or willing - to get the training needed to monitor and maintain such a network and do so at a competitive price? I know I'm not revealing anything new to you guys when I say that our history is replete with examples of machinery and technology changing the employment and production landscapes, but every time that happens new jobs open up as old jobs vanish. I realize that my view is more optimistic than yours, but I believe I'm basing my belief from a historical perspective.

You beat me to it.

That's just one benefit of free speech - it makes it easy to sort out the morons.

I'll bet that the technicians that program and maintain the kiosks will make at least $18 to $20 per hour to start.

Okay, that is pretty funny.

But planned parenthood operates in part on taxpayer money. Is it ethical, or even legal, for them to contribute to campaign funds?

For the sake of argument, who said anything about not placing them flat along the top of the wall?

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I don't know if it would be practical, or even feasible - http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/22/were-thinking-of-building-a-solar-wall-on-us-mexico-border-trump-says.html "Solar wall, panels, beautiful. I mean actually, think of it, the higher it goes, the more valuable it is."

Wow - sorry to hear that. She sounds like she's probably one of my sister's facebook friends. Also, you mean gator doesn't already have PMS?

Wish her and her family the best of luck, drive them to the airport, and tell her to keep in touch. After a month or two, if she's honest with herself, she'll realize that the racism and nationalism is much, much worse in Europe than it is here. Maybe it will open her eyes a bit. Then again, maybe your sister is like mine, and totally immune to truth or fact, even if it's tying her up and setting her on fire.

Austin is full of those jerks. And by "those jerks", I mean both cyclists and crappy drivers.

The the fact that they sing "Bingo" would do it for me. A cot, three meals, and peace and quiet would sound like heaven by comparison.

Does that apply to all 57 states?

I get your point, but that's not really what I was trying to say. We know that Earth's climate is dynamic. We also know that climate science is essentially in it's infancy. Everyone knows that we've had ice ages, each followed by a warming period. It's also believed that the earth was much warmer at times in the past - I believe the protozoic and mesozoic were both believed to have been significantly warmer. As far as I know, all the reasons given for the climate swings the earth has experienced throughout history are hypothetical. So, we have a long, established history of significant swings in climate before humanity ever came along. Is it a good idea to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Yeah, probably. Do we know for a fact that our use of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm? Nope. So given the above (and I'm sure Tom will correct anything I'm getting wrong here), is it a good idea to levy taxes and penalties based on what we actually know about climate science? I say no.

I guess this was a bonus scene from last night's episode: http://youtu.be/5RQpVA6gMh0

Or as I like to refer to it, have them develop a marketable skill. And display dedication to those beliefs via donations to the Democrat party. When was the last time Bernie railed against someone like Soros?

There are many people who believe there is a likelihood that temperatures are increasing, but are still labeled as deniers because we question the extent of humanity's involvement.

I was guessing that Chuck would accidentally electrocute himself while destroying the electric meter.

Oh, the irony of Fring performing CPR on Hector.

That's pretty cool!

Yes, that's exactly what it means. To me, the phrase "partisan gerrymandering" implies that non-partisan gerrymandering is an actual thing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of it before. Yeah, I should have clarified that. I know meathead's just quoting the article. Adding the word "partisan" appears to me to be a poor attempt at spin. As far as I know, all states do it, and both parties do it. By all appearances, it seems to have at least some legitimacy in defining state legislatures.

I like how the OP uses the phrase "Partisan Gerrymandering". Is this as opposed to "Bipartisan Gerrymandering"?