| General > General Technical Chat |
| Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus |
| << < (353/447) > >> |
| VK3DRB:
Our Victorian government has made some stupid mistakes lately so a lot more people will be working from home very soon. They have allowed the selfish and irresponsible public (about 98% of shoppers) to not social distance and not wear masks :palm:. The public's ideology is to do WTF they want and to hell with everyone else. Testing, wearing masks and not keeping 1.5m distance in public is optional here, but it should be it should be mandatory and policed with heavy penalties with the help of the military. By the end of July this entire state of 6.4 million people will most likely be in full lock down once again. So very soon it will back to work from home for most Victorians. Its used to be (to the tune of the seven dwarfs' song): " I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go." Soon it will be: "Oh no, oh no, its work from home oh no." |
| rstofer:
--- Quote from: paulca on July 03, 2020, 08:03:49 am --- --- Quote from: SilverSolder on July 01, 2020, 07:16:27 pm ---I admire the American constitution, but I don't understand why such an old document is not being kept up-to-date as time goes and society changes - surely America has moved on in 200 odd years... --- End quote --- YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE Nth AMENDMENT. Dumbest thing ever said.... em.... it's an amendment. It's like looking at a datasheet with an erratum and saying, "You can't change the 5th erratum!" --- End quote --- It's case law that matters, not the exact wording of the Constitution. The Supreme Court decides if case law is reasonably consistent with the Constitution or their interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. The sc is also in charge of deciding if new case law is consistent with old case law. |
| Nusa:
And even with the best of intentions, one cannot change human nature even if you put it in the Constitution. The obvious example are the 18th and 21st amendments. The former created prohibition of liquor in 1919, and the latter repealed it in 1933 as a failure. Alcohol consumption merely went underground rather than going away, and created more organized crime and political corruption. (And worst of all, loss of revenue from all those sinners -- illegal alcohol is also untaxed alcohol.) |
| SilverSolder:
--- Quote from: Nusa on July 04, 2020, 03:36:52 pm ---And even with the best of intentions, one cannot change human nature even if you put it in the Constitution. The obvious example are the 18th and 21st amendments. The former created prohibition of liquor in 1919, and the latter repealed it in 1933 as a failure. Alcohol consumption merely went underground rather than going away, and created more organized crime and political corruption. (And worst of all, loss of revenue from all those sinners -- illegal alcohol is also untaxed alcohol.) --- End quote --- Parallels with the legalisation of marijuana? |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: SilverSolder on July 04, 2020, 04:31:37 pm ---Parallels with the legalisation of marijuana? --- End quote --- There are a lot of parallels there, both are widely used recreational drugs, both have similar effects, alcohol is arguably much more harmful of the two. It should have been legalized decades ago, or never been illegal in the first place as it's a plant that grows naturally. It's fine for it to be illegal to be high in public just as it's illegal to be drunk in public but what someone does in privacy is their own business. Stoned people are typically not violent, they're rarely out driving around, too lazy to be out causing trouble. I don't really understand why alcohol is so much more widely accepted, it's extremely harmful stuff but people are gonna drink it anyway. Prohibition doesn't work and never has. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |