Not all crimes are committed with malice aforethought and not all ones that do are perpetrated by criminals who think of every little detail...which is why the vast majority of them are caught.
No, it would create an inconvenience for consumers who wished to buy a gun manufactured by a manufacturer who decided to forgo the California market and thus forgo the need to do this.
Besides... barrel rifling already makes a fingerprint-like marking on the shell/slug/bullet,...
Except that according to everything I have read, if the bullet hits anything that is hard enough to cause it to deform, such as, say, human bone or a piece of wood, the rifling marks no more matchable than most fingerprints found at crime scenes. Which is to say, not at all, despite claims made by experts*. I suspect that microstamping will have some kind of similar drawback.
*Several years ago a group did a study where they submitted a series of fingerprint samples to 10 separate fingerprint identification experts over a period of several months. There was very little agreement among the experts as to the identity of the fingerprint to the point that only two of the experts identified the same set of fingerprints as the same person on the second submission.
The question is whether or not it would be without government subsidies. Corporate farming is certainly very effective at obtaining government subsidies.
The problem with that is that the oldest manuscript reference we have to the number is a reference in writings by Iranaeus in the 2nd century AD where he says that the number is 666. The oldest manuscript copies of Revelation 13 which have the number as 616 are from the 3rd century AD. Iranaeus was a student of a student of the author of revelation. While it is possible Iranaeus was wrong about what the author of Revelation originally wrote, it is reasonable to assume that he was correct, especially since he refers to scribal errors in the number in some manuscripts.
Do you know what the term "shotgun wedding" means? It means the father of the bride stands behind the groom with a shotgun and tells the groom that if he says "I do" at the appropriate moment the shotgun won't go off. This is very different from people celebrating a wedding by firing rounds into the air.
In Judaism the number six is associated with imperfection, which is where the number 666 originally comes from. The number seven is associated with God. The author of Revelation was a Jewish Christian who used the number 666 to indicate the failings of this number. The perfect number would have been 777, which would have been the number for God three times (with three being the number for holiness). However, the number of the beast was 666, which is imperfection claiming holiness...or another way of looking at it the Beast is completely (3 times) incomplete (the number 6).
But if the bad lifestyle choice doesn't cost other people any more money than a good lifestyle choice, what business is it of theirs what lifestyle choice someone makes? The justification for the government interfering in people's freedom to make bad lifestyle choices is that those lifestyle choices cost the government more money, except that the evidence suggests that in the long run those bad lifestyle choices actually cost the government less money.
Congress sought to address the issue through the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which included a requirement for companies to disclose conflict minerals.
Well, right there is part of the problem. If this is something that should be dealt with in U.S. law (I can understand why it is, but I can imagine that there might be a good argument as to why it shouldn't be...and am not interested in arguing that point from either side), it should be in a law all by itself, not as an afterthought tagged on to a banking regulation bill.
Except that the evidence suggests that that is not true. Over their lifetime non-smokers have higher healthcare costs than smokers because they live longer and it ends up costing just as much in healthcare in their last couple of years as it does in the last couple of years of a smokers life.
That is a nice straw man argument you have there. However, several studies have shown that over their lifetime non-smokers actually have higher health care costs than cigarette smokers. How can that be? Because non-smokers live longer and thus end up running up more health care bills and their end of life health care costs are just as high as those of cigarette smokers, just after a longer life.
Well, studies have shown that tobacco users actually end up costing the government less in health care costs because they die younger. The problem with the logic that it is justified to charge people who choose unhealthy lifestyles more in taxes is that everybody gets sick. Sooner or later, all of those who do not die from some traumatic incident contract a life ending illness and even before that have health issues that require medical intervention. The fact of the matter is that those who choose unhealthy lifestyles generally end up having a lower total lifetime medical costs because they do not live as long.
You are correct, even in good economic times, the unemployment rate for "protected" classes tends to be higher than that of non-protected classes (and the gap has widened as EEO laws have been enacted). The reason I chose the effects of economic uncertainty to illustrate the point is because the statists preferred solution* to the problem you are addressing does not work in times of economic uncertainty.
*statists will recommend overcoming the problem you note, not by eliminating the "special protections", but by the government offering incentives to employers to hire members of the "protected" groups.
You still have the problem of businesses that do not have sufficient margin to pay such wages. The businesses I am familiar with that did not have such margin were in a dense urban environment.
Which partially explains why minorities suffer the most in times of economic uncertainty. If I need five more people right now, but conditions are such that I am not sure that I can keep them on in six months, I am better off hiring a white, healthy heterosexual male. Because if I hire a member of a minority and have to let them go in six months, there is a significant risk that they will file an EEO complaint against me (which will cost me a significant amount of money to defend against, even if it is baseless).
Overall you have given a pretty good lay out of an equitable pay scale. There are a couple of problems with it, although they could all probably be ironed out. The first one is that, if I am understanding what you wrote, you are figuring on paying each employee between $12,000 and $24,000 a year over of discretionary spending money ($1,000-$2,000 a month). I have worked for companies that did not have the profit margins to pay that much to the number of employees they had to have to operate (especially when you consider that you figured that as discretionary income for a person with a non-working spouse and 2.5 kids). The other problem is that some skill sets will be indispensable to running the company. Some of those skill sets may be in short supply (that is, there are more jobs calling for those skills than there are people with those skills). The final problem is that making the calculations to establish this equitable pay scale is expensive in time and/or money.
That being said, the idea behind your post is a great one.
What you think that the Teacher's Unions don't give campaign contributions to State and Federal office holders so that they get a say as to who is appointed to the groups that make the curriculum decisions.
That would mean that is the type of education that the majority of the people where you live want their children taught. Guess what? They are their kids, it is their call. If that is not what you want for your kids, either move, send them to a private school that teaches what you want or home school them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is DNA evidence admissible?
That is a very good question and the answer is that it probably shouldn't be.
Not all crimes are committed with malice aforethought and not all ones that do are perpetrated by criminals who think of every little detail...which is why the vast majority of them are caught.
Then why do we need this law in the first place?
No, it would create an inconvenience for consumers who wished to buy a gun manufactured by a manufacturer who decided to forgo the California market and thus forgo the need to do this.
Besides... barrel rifling already makes a fingerprint-like marking on the shell/slug/bullet,...
Except that according to everything I have read, if the bullet hits anything that is hard enough to cause it to deform, such as, say, human bone or a piece of wood, the rifling marks no more matchable than most fingerprints found at crime scenes. Which is to say, not at all, despite claims made by experts*. I suspect that microstamping will have some kind of similar drawback.
*Several years ago a group did a study where they submitted a series of fingerprint samples to 10 separate fingerprint identification experts over a period of several months. There was very little agreement among the experts as to the identity of the fingerprint to the point that only two of the experts identified the same set of fingerprints as the same person on the second submission.
The question is whether or not it would be without government subsidies. Corporate farming is certainly very effective at obtaining government subsidies.
The argument is about what the writer wrote and what he meant by it. If you find that ridiculous, I feel sorry for you.
The problem with that is that the oldest manuscript reference we have to the number is a reference in writings by Iranaeus in the 2nd century AD where he says that the number is 666. The oldest manuscript copies of Revelation 13 which have the number as 616 are from the 3rd century AD. Iranaeus was a student of a student of the author of revelation. While it is possible Iranaeus was wrong about what the author of Revelation originally wrote, it is reasonable to assume that he was correct, especially since he refers to scribal errors in the number in some manuscripts.
Actually, that was pretty much OBL's exact rationale - supporting oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel, not a 'knee-jerk leftist response'.
Apparently you don't bother to read why folks actually hate you, but rather use it to tilt at windmills and attack strawmen.
Well, that and building the Islamic caliphate to rule the entire world with himself as the Caliph.
Ahem... Shotgun wedding.
Do you know what the term "shotgun wedding" means? It means the father of the bride stands behind the groom with a shotgun and tells the groom that if he says "I do" at the appropriate moment the shotgun won't go off. This is very different from people celebrating a wedding by firing rounds into the air.
In Judaism the number six is associated with imperfection, which is where the number 666 originally comes from. The number seven is associated with God. The author of Revelation was a Jewish Christian who used the number 666 to indicate the failings of this number. The perfect number would have been 777, which would have been the number for God three times (with three being the number for holiness). However, the number of the beast was 666, which is imperfection claiming holiness...or another way of looking at it the Beast is completely (3 times) incomplete (the number 6).
But if the bad lifestyle choice doesn't cost other people any more money than a good lifestyle choice, what business is it of theirs what lifestyle choice someone makes? The justification for the government interfering in people's freedom to make bad lifestyle choices is that those lifestyle choices cost the government more money, except that the evidence suggests that in the long run those bad lifestyle choices actually cost the government less money.
Congress sought to address the issue through the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which included a requirement for companies to disclose conflict minerals.
Well, right there is part of the problem. If this is something that should be dealt with in U.S. law (I can understand why it is, but I can imagine that there might be a good argument as to why it shouldn't be...and am not interested in arguing that point from either side), it should be in a law all by itself, not as an afterthought tagged on to a banking regulation bill.
No, farm subsidies are intended to help the profit margin of corporate farmers. The small, local farmer gets very little of the farm subsidies.
Except that the evidence suggests that that is not true. Over their lifetime non-smokers have higher healthcare costs than smokers because they live longer and it ends up costing just as much in healthcare in their last couple of years as it does in the last couple of years of a smokers life.
That is a nice straw man argument you have there. However, several studies have shown that over their lifetime non-smokers actually have higher health care costs than cigarette smokers. How can that be? Because non-smokers live longer and thus end up running up more health care bills and their end of life health care costs are just as high as those of cigarette smokers, just after a longer life.
Well, studies have shown that tobacco users actually end up costing the government less in health care costs because they die younger. The problem with the logic that it is justified to charge people who choose unhealthy lifestyles more in taxes is that everybody gets sick. Sooner or later, all of those who do not die from some traumatic incident contract a life ending illness and even before that have health issues that require medical intervention. The fact of the matter is that those who choose unhealthy lifestyles generally end up having a lower total lifetime medical costs because they do not live as long.
You are correct, even in good economic times, the unemployment rate for "protected" classes tends to be higher than that of non-protected classes (and the gap has widened as EEO laws have been enacted). The reason I chose the effects of economic uncertainty to illustrate the point is because the statists preferred solution* to the problem you are addressing does not work in times of economic uncertainty.
*statists will recommend overcoming the problem you note, not by eliminating the "special protections", but by the government offering incentives to employers to hire members of the "protected" groups.
You still have the problem of businesses that do not have sufficient margin to pay such wages. The businesses I am familiar with that did not have such margin were in a dense urban environment.
Which partially explains why minorities suffer the most in times of economic uncertainty. If I need five more people right now, but conditions are such that I am not sure that I can keep them on in six months, I am better off hiring a white, healthy heterosexual male. Because if I hire a member of a minority and have to let them go in six months, there is a significant risk that they will file an EEO complaint against me (which will cost me a significant amount of money to defend against, even if it is baseless).
Overall you have given a pretty good lay out of an equitable pay scale. There are a couple of problems with it, although they could all probably be ironed out. The first one is that, if I am understanding what you wrote, you are figuring on paying each employee between $12,000 and $24,000 a year over of discretionary spending money ($1,000-$2,000 a month). I have worked for companies that did not have the profit margins to pay that much to the number of employees they had to have to operate (especially when you consider that you figured that as discretionary income for a person with a non-working spouse and 2.5 kids). The other problem is that some skill sets will be indispensable to running the company. Some of those skill sets may be in short supply (that is, there are more jobs calling for those skills than there are people with those skills). The final problem is that making the calculations to establish this equitable pay scale is expensive in time and/or money.
That being said, the idea behind your post is a great one.
Considering that the NLRB does not currently have a legal quorum, does this ruling even matter?
Yet, it is never washington imposing creationism or other empty headed nonsense on schools.
Washington has imposed plenty of empty headed nonsense on schools.
What you think that the Teacher's Unions don't give campaign contributions to State and Federal office holders so that they get a say as to who is appointed to the groups that make the curriculum decisions.
That would mean that is the type of education that the majority of the people where you live want their children taught. Guess what? They are their kids, it is their call. If that is not what you want for your kids, either move, send them to a private school that teaches what you want or home school them.
That's the responsibility of the local teachers and the children's parents.