>>36437 sound like a bullshit article; what estimations? there is a paper published about it somewhere? And anyway according to wikipedia there are ~88 millions of members of the communist party which is something like the ~6% of the total population, so not really that surprising that there are more "religious" people than communist party members.
Finally christian holidays in most asian countries are incredibly commercialized, so the way of celebrating (and the reason for doing so) for chinese people may... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>36437 Because christianity and communism aren't actually opposed to eachother, despite what people say. Communist counties having very large christian communities is one of the worst kept secrets I've ever come across.
So in my very short, and very quick research and reading of several articles from various different news outlets, I have found that the recent RFRA that is trying to get passed was originally meant for Religious Minorities who otherwise have no protection at all under local laws.
I am a Christian, and I understand what this means as getting passed, but Christianity is by no means a minority in this country anymore, and this law seems like it is getting supported (and... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
MUMBAI, INDIA—A growing number of states in India are imposing a new requirement on candidates for local office: They must use a toilet. The western state of Maharashtra this past week became the latest to pass a law requiring those running in municipal and village-level elections to present proof that they have access to working toilets. Five Indian states — with combined populations of nearly 400 million people, or roughly one-third of the country — have enacted similar legislation over the past two years. That’s no small demand in a country in which an estimated... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
The bill Fadnavis initially proposed last fall would have required every local candidate to have a working toilet at home. That prompted resistance from some opposition parties, which said it would disqualify many poor candidates as well as those living in urban areas who use shared public toilets. In Mumbai, India’s second-most populous city and the largest in Maharashtra, one-third of municipal office-holders belonging to the powerful Shiv Sena party reside in slums that have shared toilets, said a party official, Anil Parab. The state government relented and the law... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
“The bill polarizes the candidates between rich and poor,” said Kiran Pawaskar, an opposition state lawmaker. “The intent is good but the law is bad.” Opponents of such legislation in other states have had mixed success. In February, the government in the northern state of Bihar, which is not allied with Modi, withdrew a law requiring candidates in local elections to have toilets in their homes, saying the state had fallen short of its promises to build more toilets. Last June, a court in the western state of Gujarat, which is led by Modi’s party, rejected a... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Recently, I’ve been amazed to find restaurants placing a surcharge (usually around five dollars) for entrée sharing. In other words, you pay extra to get an empty second plate. In some restaurants the portions are so large that entrée sharing is common, especially amongst older diners. But what’s the difference between one person or two at the same table? It doesn’t change costs. Isn’t this surcharge unethical? I sent your question to my “usually reliable source” in the restaurant industry, and what came back was a rant of Mercerian proportions. Here’s a snippet: “People forget that they’re not paying just for the food but for the whole dining experience, let alone (God forbid) the small amount left over for a restaurateur who’s spent his life and passion producing that food. Guests often comment ‘I can make that dish at home for half that price.’ Yes, you can, in fact less than half at my restaurants; we know that and we’re up front about it. But your house doesn’t supply the person to cook, serve it to you and wash your dishes — let alone all the other things that create the environment you enjoy.” Obviously, you touched a nerve. But the math is solidly on the side of the restaurants. In successful, mid-range eateries (in between Ronald McDonald and Susur Lee), only about 30 per cent of operational dollars are spent on food and booze; another 30 per cent goes to staffing (salary, benefits, training, etc.), and 30 per cent is spent on facilities. That leaves about 10 per cent profit.
When you split an entrée, the restaurant saves some food cost — but the other 70 per cent of costs are the same. You’re using dishes and cutlery that have to be cleaned, sitting on furniture under electric lights, enjoying heat or air conditioning, being seated by the same hostess and served by the same server. And all those amenities and people represent real costs. So, ethically speaking, there’s no problem with a restaurateur imposing a surcharge for entrée splitting; you’re not paying for an “empty plate,” but for the whole experience of being there. And... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>36310 wow, talk about a bad customer service experience. in order to gain and maintain a clientele you do stuff, all sorts of stuff. Because word will get out, and your competition across the street will make a funny sandwich sign or bright placard stating "now with free empty plate"!
I hear you as far as fixed costs are concerned, but its the little things along with the big stuff (clean, fresh food, food safety, etc) that make the Hospitality industry such a challenge, and so different from all other industries.
>>36310 Why not just order the entree for one person, then share it when you get it? They might not like it, but can they really charge you extra for splitting it if you specifically ordered it for one person?
>Players on the U.S. women's national soccer team say they are being discriminated against because they are paid less than members of the men's team
>The U.S. Soccer Federation said in a statement that it has supported the development of the women's game for the past 30 years, including pushing for the women's sport to be added to the Olympics in 1996 and to having prize money for the... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>36242 ...No. The issue it's not the sex of the players, but the money produced by the spectacle, and as of now, people prefer to see MEN roll on the grass clutching their knees. Get to their theatric level and then you can get paid the same.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.