Because technically, the two Koreas are still at war, thus, no post-war negotiations ever have happened.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And why do they call it "Korea (North)?" Just use North Korea.
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6537|Graz, Austria
you can just look at what universities they've been to and obviously if they work for a tax firm, they should know their shit.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If I'm going to a person to do my taxes, I want to know I'm getting a bare minimum standard of service.
In Aus you need a license to serve alcohol and coffee. All in the name of "safety and standards"
Think you mean alcohol and gambling licenses when behind a bar or working in an RSL with pokies, etc.Cybargs wrote:
you can just look at what universities they've been to and obviously if they work for a tax firm, they should know their shit.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If I'm going to a person to do my taxes, I want to know I'm getting a bare minimum standard of service.
In Aus you need a license to serve alcohol and coffee. All in the name of "safety and standards"
Coffee? Never heard of that.
Liquor licenses and food handler licenses?Cybargs wrote:
In Aus you need a license to serve alcohol and coffee. All in the name of "safety and standards"
???
RSA and RSG are the two standard requirements for Responsible service of alcohol/gambling.
RSA isn't a licence per se, it's a certificate that says you attended a two day/night course in which you learned how to pour/mix drinks and recognise when someone is too wasted to drink, so you can then refuse them service to prevent them getting worse and doing something stupid then later sue you, your manager and the owner (which has happened here as well as overseas*)
You don't need a food handling licence. My brother has worked in hospitality for years, currently a supervisor at Brisbane's biggest hotel. Before that he was supervisor at was voted last year as Australia's best luxury accommodation and he's never once mentioned anything of the sort. My ex was supervisor at Brisbane's best seafood restaurant and worked in hospitality before that too.
*I got an RSA years ago and was told by the teacher how a guy in the US got drunk to the point he could barely walk then left the place and got hit by a car and successfully sued the bartender for $8 million
You don't need a food handling licence. My brother has worked in hospitality for years, currently a supervisor at Brisbane's biggest hotel. Before that he was supervisor at was voted last year as Australia's best luxury accommodation and he's never once mentioned anything of the sort. My ex was supervisor at Brisbane's best seafood restaurant and worked in hospitality before that too.
*I got an RSA years ago and was told by the teacher how a guy in the US got drunk to the point he could barely walk then left the place and got hit by a car and successfully sued the bartender for $8 million
I had in mind that he was talking about businesses rather than people. You don't need an individual licenses to do either but the business you work for has to have both for either of the two things.
RSA's are required (at least in NSW) for a person to serve alcohol. It's such a waste of 150 dollars. You should be able to know if someone's drunk if you work at a bar in the first place.Jaekus wrote:
RSA isn't a licence per se, it's a certificate that says you attended a two day/night course in which you learned how to pour/mix drinks and recognise when someone is too wasted to drink, so you can then refuse them service to prevent them getting worse and doing something stupid then later sue you, your manager and the owner (which has happened here as well as overseas*)
Ah. Yeah here the business needs an alcohol licence to sell alcohol, and there are different types of licence. Certain restaurants (or a local karaoke lounge) have a BYO only licence. Other places will have the licence till a certain time and some (depending on state laws) have 24 hour licences. It's very similar to what I experienced in the US last year; CA state alcohol serving laws suck. 2am is far too earlyMacbeth wrote:
I had in mind that he was talking about businesses rather than people. You don't need an individual licenses to do either but the business you work for has to have both for either of the two things.
AFAIK it's a requirement nation wide.Cybargs wrote:
RSA's are required (at least in NSW) for a person to serve alcohol. It's such a waste of 150 dollars. You should be able to know if someone's drunk if you work at a bar in the first place.Jaekus wrote:
RSA isn't a licence per se, it's a certificate that says you attended a two day/night course in which you learned how to pour/mix drinks and recognise when someone is too wasted to drink, so you can then refuse them service to prevent them getting worse and doing something stupid then later sue you, your manager and the owner (which has happened here as well as overseas*)
I think it's a good idea because it takes the onus off the business to a degree. If a busy bar employs some 18 year old to be a glassy and on a hectic night some supervisor decides to put them to service, and that 18 year old serves a half dozen shots to someone wasted, and that person does something stupid then later turns around and sues the place for negligence because that person was in a diminished capacity it just creates a legal mess for the staff and owner - supervisor exercised poor judgement, inexperienced staff member should've exercised common sense, owner didn't adequately train or hire adequately trained staff etc. But if that staff member holds an RSA then the owner and supervisor can say they know the staff member has been trained and should've known better.
Last edited by Jaekus (2012-12-05 22:03:08)
I think that's the whole point of an RSA, to push responsibility to the employee rather than the employer. but still, 150 bucks for a certificate =.=
I'm currently getting a Cert IV in mental health. Even with a $500 grant and having 13 units RPL'd so I only need to study two it's still cost me $510 to go with the cheapest option (most expensive was a minimum $3k without gap training). Things cost money.
That's a bit different when it's more of a necessary diploma for a skillset. judging if someone's drunk or not should not really require a certificate.Jaekus wrote:
I'm currently getting a Cert IV in mental health. Even with a $500 grant and having 13 units RPL'd so I only need to study two it's still cost me $510 to go with the cheapest option (most expensive was a minimum $3k without gap training). Things cost money.
Meh, it's $150. You'll make that back on the first shift. It's not much different than me renewing my first aid cert every three years and my CPR every year, along with an annual police check and renewing my yellow card to work with people with disability (once every 3 years). I've done it about 5-6 times by now but I still need to do it as a requirement of my work.
Last edited by Jaekus (2012-12-06 00:16:05)
Wrong. Standards, which are usually concepts, come from various sources, govt, industry, market pressures, desire to squeeze out competition, specific disasters etc. Standards can be as simple as "people shouldn't die if they use this product" in a nutshell.Jay wrote:
Have you ever worked in construction? Do you know why standards exist in plumbing, electrical and structural fields? They're based in mathematics. I can tell you based on the psi in a pipe whether it will fail or not. Those standards came from the manufacturers themselves. They, working with engineering societies, came up with those concepts. It's got nothing to do with the government.
Industry standards, best practice conventions, all those calculations etc come about as a means of meeting those standards, as often as not they's more about giving engineers a defence against negligence accusations than they are there for protection of the public.
Specific derived standards can be strange and obscure for sure though, until you understand where they've come from and why. They're still usually better than letting any goon make it up as he goes along.
Yes they do, any product sold must meet extensive standards - eg UL. Any piece of electronics or software in a safety critical environment must meet extensive standards. Any product connected to the telecom network or mains electricity has to meet standards, any product which could emit or be affected by RF must meet standards, any product which uses the radio spectrum must meet standards etc etc etc.Jay wrote:
Do you think the government looks over the shoulder of the engineers in silicon valley to make sure that the product they design won't kill anyone?
Yes you do, and you need standards on practice and parts - or a dodgy plumber can bring down a building or poison an entire city.You don't need a licensed plumber.
You can tell when it will definitely fail, the not part is an awful lot trickier, standards are not a guarantee.I can tell you based on the psi in a pipe whether it will fail or not.
Please, stick to pastries.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-06 03:10:36)
Fuck Israel
What I think is the aviation business should be deregulated, a free market in the skies.
No standards on aircraft design, that would knock out the Boeing Airbus duopoly, let anyone knock together an aeroplane and we'll see the costs come right down. No pesky airworthiness and safety tests should get these cheap planes to the market quicker too.
No standards on aircraft maintenance, the free market will look after that. If an airline doesn't bother with risk mediation well then their planes will fall out of the skies and people will stop flying with them. Why pay licensed engineers when kids today can look stuff up on google or watch a youtube video of how to do it as they go along?
Lets take Air Traffic Control, I mean just the word 'Control' should have every Libertarian making placards and marching to Capitol Hill.
Let every pilot pick his own route and whoever gets to the runway first doesn't have to do a go-around. No more flying any further than they have to, no more circling in stacks burning fuel - every man for himself and it'll be like a rodeo in the wild west - I sure wish we were back in those times - just a man and his horse and his six-shooter.
Why bother with aircraft security? If Al Qaeda take out a plane or building or both then the relatives of the people killed can track them down and sue them - in the long run it will all correct itself - thats the genius of the free market!
No standards on aircraft design, that would knock out the Boeing Airbus duopoly, let anyone knock together an aeroplane and we'll see the costs come right down. No pesky airworthiness and safety tests should get these cheap planes to the market quicker too.
No standards on aircraft maintenance, the free market will look after that. If an airline doesn't bother with risk mediation well then their planes will fall out of the skies and people will stop flying with them. Why pay licensed engineers when kids today can look stuff up on google or watch a youtube video of how to do it as they go along?
Lets take Air Traffic Control, I mean just the word 'Control' should have every Libertarian making placards and marching to Capitol Hill.
Let every pilot pick his own route and whoever gets to the runway first doesn't have to do a go-around. No more flying any further than they have to, no more circling in stacks burning fuel - every man for himself and it'll be like a rodeo in the wild west - I sure wish we were back in those times - just a man and his horse and his six-shooter.
Why bother with aircraft security? If Al Qaeda take out a plane or building or both then the relatives of the people killed can track them down and sue them - in the long run it will all correct itself - thats the genius of the free market!
Fuck Israel
Why do you think China airlines and Polish airlines are doing so shit. everyone knows their planes drop out of the sky like its cool.Dilbert_X wrote:
No standards on aircraft design, that would knock out the Boeing Airbus duopoly, let anyone knock together an aeroplane and we'll see the costs come right down. No pesky airworthiness and safety tests should get these cheap planes to the market quicker too.
I bet they're cheap though - thats the point. Let them practice in the US market and either the safer companies will be squeezed out due to cost pressures, will have to relax their standards to stay competitive or everybody will die - its win win.
These people didn't have insurance? - Let the free market sort them out.US President Barack Obama is expected to ask Congress for about $50bn (GBP31bn) in extra emergency aid for states hit by Storm Sandy, Democrats have said.
The administration is still compiling its request but may ask for between $45bn and $55bn, US media reported.
The spending request would be smaller than the $83bn in disaster aid that the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are seeking.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-12-06 01:14:04)
Fuck Israel
Those licenses aren't really about protecting people. They are there to extort money for the city out of owners by making them go through a planning board process that their potential competitors can weigh in at and complain. It takes tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to get a liquor license in NYC and there's a cap on the number of licenses issued every year, just like with taxi medallions. Bars and restaurants don't want excessive competition. Hear them howl if you plant a food truck on their block.Macbeth wrote:
I had in mind that he was talking about businesses rather than people. You don't need an individual licenses to do either but the business you work for has to have both for either of the two things.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Hey turdburglar, I know you're a Tory, but all power doesn't have to reside with the government. People get along just fine everyday without having their every movement dictated.Dilbert_X wrote:
What I think is the aviation business should be deregulated, a free market in the skies.
No standards on aircraft design, that would knock out the Boeing Airbus duopoly, let anyone knock together an aeroplane and we'll see the costs come right down. No pesky airworthiness and safety tests should get these cheap planes to the market quicker too.
No standards on aircraft maintenance, the free market will look after that. If an airline doesn't bother with risk mediation well then their planes will fall out of the skies and people will stop flying with them. Why pay licensed engineers when kids today can look stuff up on google or watch a youtube video of how to do it as they go along?
Lets take Air Traffic Control, I mean just the word 'Control' should have every Libertarian making placards and marching to Capitol Hill.
Let every pilot pick his own route and whoever gets to the runway first doesn't have to do a go-around. No more flying any further than they have to, no more circling in stacks burning fuel - every man for himself and it'll be like a rodeo in the wild west - I sure wish we were back in those times - just a man and his horse and his six-shooter.
Why bother with aircraft security? If Al Qaeda take out a plane or building or both then the relatives of the people killed can track them down and sue them - in the long run it will all correct itself - thats the genius of the free market!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yes, they should. Even the New York TImes agrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/opini … .html?_r=0Dilbert_X wrote:
I bet they're cheap though - thats the point. Let them practice in the US market and either the safer companies will be squeezed out due to cost pressures, will have to relax their standards to stay competitive or everybody will die - its win win.These people didn't have insurance? - Let the free market sort them out.US President Barack Obama is expected to ask Congress for about $50bn (GBP31bn) in extra emergency aid for states hit by Storm Sandy, Democrats have said.
The administration is still compiling its request but may ask for between $45bn and $55bn, US media reported.
The spending request would be smaller than the $83bn in disaster aid that the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are seeking.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah it is a problem when they keep rebuilding in the same flood area
Which party makes race an issue?AussieReaper wrote:
Because it's just so easy to mock Republicans.Jay wrote:
Why do you post?
Seriously the GOP race for Presidential nominee was hilarious and I'm looking forward to the next. It'll be so funny watching them fight to be "seriously conservative" then suddenly have to cater towards the actual population. I mean, the demographics alone becoming less old white guy makes for an interesting campaign the racists homophobes have to deal with, let alone the anti-science pro abortion wing.
Which party makes sexual preference an issue?
Hint: It's not the GOP.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Wow, learned today on the news that Virginia is the only state which only allows a governor to serve only one term. That's a great idea, it keeps them from sitting on their hands bullshitting away the first term and playing the compromise game to get re-election so instead they can make real progress the entire time instead.
Last edited by _j5689_ (2012-12-06 10:56:56)
Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo when DADT was repealed by Democrats in an attempt to make sexual preference NOT an issue.FEOS wrote:
Which party makes race an issue?AussieReaper wrote:
Because it's just so easy to mock Republicans.Jay wrote:
Why do you post?
Seriously the GOP race for Presidential nominee was hilarious and I'm looking forward to the next. It'll be so funny watching them fight to be "seriously conservative" then suddenly have to cater towards the actual population. I mean, the demographics alone becoming less old white guy makes for an interesting campaign the racists homophobes have to deal with, let alone the anti-science pro abortion wing.
Which party makes sexual preference an issue?
Hint: It's not the GOP.
It's pretty much across the board No's from the GOP on repealing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_As … _roll_call
And your argument is that it's the democrats that make this an issue? lol They do the opposite.
Republicans though? Simply watch this
and explain who makes an issue of sexual preference.
As for race, just take a look at how many birthers have come out of the woodwork against Obama. The Muslim socialist Kenyan.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-12-06 11:17:19)
Democrats bring up the issue of discrimination. Shame on them for trying to make people have equal rights is what he is trying to say.AussieReaper wrote:
Oh I'm sorry, I must have missed the memo when DADT was repealed by Democrats in an attempt to make sexual preference NOT an issue.FEOS wrote:
Which party makes race an issue?AussieReaper wrote:
Because it's just so easy to mock Republicans.
Seriously the GOP race for Presidential nominee was hilarious and I'm looking forward to the next. It'll be so funny watching them fight to be "seriously conservative" then suddenly have to cater towards the actual population. I mean, the demographics alone becoming less old white guy makes for an interesting campaign the racists homophobes have to deal with, let alone the anti-science pro abortion wing.
Which party makes sexual preference an issue?
Hint: It's not the GOP.
It's pretty much across the board No's from the GOP on repealing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_As … _roll_call
And your argument is that it's the democrats that make this an issue? lol They do the opposite.
Republicans though? Simply watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … rQ7s7NKql8
and explain who makes an issue of sexual preference.
As for race, just take a look at how many birthers have come out of the woodwork against Obama. The Muslim socialist Kenyan.