Martha stewart, jullianne moore mark wahlberg, marisa miller maxim,

Dobcen · Guest

Nah, that's understandable.
using a mac has made me a windows only person

Polite · Guest

“Can't the state just take these people's cars away, until they submit proof that they are legally allowed to drive?

Barnett · Guest

The article advocates 4 day work weeks, but workers would still be working 40 hours a week. As the workplace becomes more efficient through the use of computers, automation, robots, etc., it starts making more and more sense to replace the 40 hour work week with something smaller like a 32 hour work week. What's the point of being a technologically superior society if we still need to spend 40 hours a week pretending to be fully busy at work? 40 hour work weeks are obsolete.Getting rid of them would also help our unemployment numbers.Why not hire 40 workers at 32 hours each instead of 32 workers at 40 hours each?I for one would welcome 3 day weekends.If you want to continue working 40 hours, maybe you should be earning overtime for anything past 32 hours while I spend my newly freed up hours at home..
The only reason I'd want a dislike button is to dislike people trying to make feature changes with ***** like this:TheBSG has invited you to the 1,000,000 users for a "Pee in Cereal" button WE CAN DO THIS!!!!!!!!! group.!

Mcbain · Guest

I miss you Atari. T_T?
no ad on my end

OMONJIADE · Guest

You must be a scientologist.

Navshree · Guest

From Amendment 14 of the Constitution: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."All people save Indians not taxed; not just citizens. The number of citizens has never determined the # of house representatives (article 1 section 2), and even after Amendment 14 (which effectively got rid of the "three fifths of all other Persons"[slaves] part), it still doesn't determine house representation. Thus, it's not technically relevant to the census. So, chill. It's not like it's legal for them to vote for a congressman.Mind you, I think the census *should* ask the question, seeing as they have done so in the past (the 2000 census did, at least), but it's irrelevent to representation (just like most of the questions).To all of you who have just recently started complaining about too many questions on the census: where the hell have you been? This isn't even remotely new. It's as if things the government has been doing for decades are now suddenly evil, simply because it's someone else overseeing them...

Ulisa · Guest