TomAiello

I don't know. I'm not sure I'd support forcing protestants to tithe to the Catholic church, even in Ireland. I guess I'm just a disestablishmentarian. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Because our omniscient government has deemed that a piece of pipe on a gun that is shorter than 16-inches is evil. Actually, even the 18" barreled version isn't allowed in the USA. It's an import restriction, based on country of manufacture and somehow imposed in the byzantine world of import/export regulation. There are several companies that have talked about licensing to set up production in the US (Barrett and Charles Daly seem to be the most serious), so that the Tavor can be sold here (a semi-auto version that would come standard with a 16" barrel). I'm totally with you on the barrel length issues though. The whole SBR/SBS business is antiquated, and we'd all be better off if the category were just dropped from the NFA. I mean, when you can buy a pistol that fires the same round, what's the point in restricting the rifle to a 16" barrel? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

"Statism is the great political disease of the 20th century." - Jimmy Rogers -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yeah Tom.. Would you? Well, to be fair, I might have some things to say about it. Most likely with regard to specific techniques, or object selection. Oh, and I once told one of my employees that them playing a kazoo during an illegal BASE jump would make me uncomfortable. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'll take your word for that, but I am sure it must be modified to disable the auto function. Not sure what the fuck you would hunt with that barrel though. Full auto versions (of anything manufactured in the last 20 years) aren't allowed in the USA, either. Pretty much everything (including the Tavor) has a semi-auto only version for public sale. The Tavor (and a couple other modern assault rifles) are a frequent gripe of American gun owners--how come those commies up in Canada can get them and we can't? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Fantastic. Does that mean that you would leave your workers alone if they finished their work and completed everything that they were supposed to do that fits within their job description? Yes. Absolutely. You contract with your employer to do certain work. That work, and your performance of it, is within the scope of your contract. Everything else is outside it. "Seat time" requirements are lame. If you have done your work, then you've done it. More importantly, a manager who wants an employee to "look busy" is doing a piss poor job of management. If you're more efficient than others, that's to your benefit, but it's also to the employers benefit. In fact, what they ought to do is give you a raise, along with more responsibilities, since you're finishing your current work faster. An employer who fails to recognize that an employee can do more (in fact, usually would be happier doing more) is making a huge mistake. Ditto for an employer who won't let someone just finish their work and go home. If the employee doesn't want more work and pay to go with it, then you should let them take off--they obviously value their free time, and the best way to reward them for doing their work efficiently is to let them get out of there and enjoy their free time. You'd be wrong. I've had several management experiences. In general, if it was in my power, I'd first offer to pay them more and give them more work, and then (or first, in most cases where it wasn't in my power) I'd just ask them if they wanted to go home (with pay for the rest of the hours, if they were paid that way--even if I wasn't supposed to do that). You are aware that I employ a few people who are required to make BASE jumps as part of their work, right? Regardless, what someone does with their time, outside of work, is their business, not their employers. I'd be the manager out there with them, if we'd both finished our work. I'm happy to debate that. Can you point out a concrete negative impact on another human being? Drug use (or BASE jumping, or whatever) doesn't hurt anyone else. You can make an argument that it might "indirectly" hurt people who have to pay for medical care or something, but that's kind of outside the scope of the current (employee/employer relationships) discussion. Still, if you want to have that debate, we can have at it. If I was your boss? I'd try to find a way for you to do something else until you'd healed up enough to go back to your normal job, or make allowances for you. Treating employees with hardship circumstances thoughtfully is an excellent morale booster, and in the long run it's going to make my business more successful to have happy employees. If I was just some guy making a comment on the internet? I'd say that if you couldn't do the work, your boss would have the right to fire you. You had contracted with him to do that work. If you can't meet the terms of the contract, then he doesn't need to do so either. What's your career, and is personal appearance important to the actual job? If you're a mechanic, a cook, an engineer, or something like that (a non customer-relations role) then I don't see how appearance matters. On the other hand, if you're a salesman? Yeah, I can see how your employer might want to have you present an image of the company that matches the image it wants. Depends on what you're selling, though. It would be silly to make someone who sold tatooing and piercing equipment (for example) take out a piercing, or cover a tatoo. But if you're selling annuities to old ladies? Sure, I can see your employer having a dress code. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Well, anything about how I'd behave in a management role, for starters. Anything about my not wanting people to smoke pot, or wanting to fire them if they did. I'm (a) in support of legalizing just about all recreational substances, and (b) opposed to judging people on their looks, rather than their performance. I'm not going to try to make people do boring jobs and then decide they're lazy. I'm not going to decide people are lazy because they smoke pot, or have long hair. Yet you seem to think that those are somehow my positions, and you're spending time arguing against them. When another poster said something that implied he though people who smoked pot were lazy or forgetful, I told him the problem was that the people were lazy or forgetful, and that what they chose to use recreationally was not the issue. Maybe I'm having trouble seeing your position, but if you want to enumerate which of the following you disagree with, I'd love to discuss my actual positions with you: 1) People should be judged based on actions and performance, not appearance. 2) Employees should be judged based on work performance, not the recreation they engage in away from work. 3) Recreational activities that harm no one (like drug use) ought to be legal. 4) If a person is failing to do their work properly, the problem is their failure to do the work--not their personal recreational choices, or their appearance. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't think so. My point was that I'm happier with those sorts of decisions being made at a county, rather than a federal level. That's because I think a county is less likely to take action restricting people's freedom to ride motorcycles, skydive, or whatever. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The Secretary of State didn't meet with Mousavi. That's a real, definite action. The reaction to the two situations are far from equivalent. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Chicago, I think. Nothing good has ever come out of that place anyway. (well, aside from I-65 South) -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You're working very hard to disagree with me here. I've essentially agreed with you, and in an effort to argue with me you've made up some other position that is not mine, then claimed that I hold it. Whatever. Have fun arguing with yourself. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Dude where did I say _anything_ about their appearance? Judging people based on their work performance is exactly what a business ought to do. My comment was intended to convey that they ought to be judged on their work performance alone--not on their appearance or their recreational substance use. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Dude, have you read the WSJ article I've linked 3 times in the last week? The one where the non profit hospital charged 5 times as much as it's for profit competitor across town? And the non-profit hospital paid it's executives 7 figure salaries (about 5 times as much as the executives at the for profit hospital made)? About one of the hospitals that President Obama held up as a model for the healthcare system? I know I've said this before, but I'm going to post it again in hopes that you will read it this time: My wife is a physician. One of her former partners decided to go in with the local (non-profit) hospital. They doubled his rates. That's right--the patients now pay twice as much for any given appointment or procedure, under the new "non-profit" system. The hospital just took his previous billings and added a "hospital fee" equal to the previous fee onto them, doubling the cost to the patients--and pocketing the difference, since the doctor still gets paid the same. Please look at how the non-profits really behave before you decide that they are all goodness and light. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

? I guess I'm a little slow, but I've got no idea what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, it's the general ability to change (peacefully) that makes it great. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No doubt thats because those poor Canadians don't have guns to protect themselves against all the gun toting Yanks that come over the border! Did you know a private citizen can buy a Tavor in Canada, but not in the USA? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Exactly right . . . he's very specifically talking about a GROUP of people, not individuals. What are groups composed of? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Both things will happen. It's impossible to say which effect will govern--technological advances making extraction (or manufacturing of oil) cheaper, or depletion of naturally occurring petroleum. It's kind of like the atmospheric carbon business you were talking about earlier--one process drives it up, one drives it down, and we simply don't know yet which will govern in the long run. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I learned not to judge people based on appearance. Where did you go to school? Judgmentalism R Us? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

He's too honest, intelligent and principled. People in Washington are scared by those qualities. Personally, I'd be headed for Switzerland. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You missed the part where he tried to fire the head of the Army and install his own guy, which was also apparently a congressional power, not a presidential one, and the Supreme Court ruled the order unconstitutional. Basically, the president tried to hold a coup to hold onto power past his term. The supreme court rules it unconstitutional, and the army enforced the court's orders. Like you, I'm puzzled as to how this is a coup. Sounds more like a coup was avoided, to me. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The more you use and develop the technology for recovery, the cheaper that recovery will be. The technology for extraction from a "depleted" field was prohibitively expensive 10 years ago ($200/barrel) but is now looking downright reasonable ($70/barrel for the same extraction). Of course as we further extract, each new barrel will be harder to get, and extraction from one field will this become more expensive over time, but I think there's quite a lot of $80/barrel oil still sitting around in "depleted" US fields. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You are assuming at least: (a) that the cost of recovering oil remains constant (and does not decrease with new technology) (b) that the total production of an "empty" field cannot be increased with new technologies (c) that the price of oil on the world market remains constant Honestly, I can't see how any of those assumptions could be correct. The price of oil will rise. Some enterprising folks will sort out a way to extract more oil from "depleted" fields (in fact, this has already happened, and depleted fields are being bought up by investors who are waiting to make a killing when oil stays north of $100 per barrel). As they develop the technologies for extraction further, the price of production will fall. Since the price of production from the "depleted" fields will become lower than the price on the market, those fields will be re-opened to further extraction (at a higher, but still profit making, cost, given a higher price of oil on the world market). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

He's saying that brits are the drunkest people in the world--and statistically he's correct. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You don't always have that opportunity. Your rights are bounded by the rights of others, and your right to self-determination does not include forcing other people to do what you want. You have a right to your own property, and your own choices, and not to anyone else's. You can't steal someone else's car, even if you want it. You may want to have sex with that supermodel, but she has free will, and the only fair role of government is making sure her free will is respected in the matter. I'm not sure I understand the question in this context. Can you give a specific example? More generally, you do not have a right to free choice which imposes upon others. In other words, you can choose to swing your arm around in the air, unless it happens to intersect someone else's nose. When you do that, you have imposed on their choices without their consent. When two people have opposing interests, they resolve them through negotiation, outright purchase, or whatever other peaceable means are available. Currently, we run into problems because it's often cheaper for the stronger to get the government to force the weaker to his will, rather than having to go to the trouble of making it worth the other parties while. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com