Easy solutioin without a bunch of crap paperwork. You are allowed to present a caller ID matching any number that is part of your account and no other. So if you want to present your main number, no problem. If you are calling on someone else's behalf, then you'll need authorization from them.
So it will save us from hoaxes but the real bombs will be a total surprise now. And there will be more real bombs now that fake bombs can't create the wanted panic anymore.
And then, when (not if) this is abused for other anonymous tips, anonymous tiops will just go away leaving police wityh less information than they have now. There are many reasons a person with real information may want no further involvement and will only provide that information if they are quite sure that will end their part in it.
That doesn't necessarily hole either. I have performed the act of engineering. I have no relevant degree, no licensing, and no insurance for it. Since I have engineered, I have some logical claim to a general term like engineer. Not all engineering requires all of that. In many cases, that's just fine as long as the work is ultimately reviewed and signed off by a P.E.
I do NOT have any claim to more specific terms such as Licensed Professional Engineer. The Oregon board needs to pull it's cranium from it's posterior and focus on controlling the use of the more specific term rather than trying to redefine a generic term that has been in use centuries longer than they have existed.
The problem comes in when instead of using a more specific term for someone who has passed the exams, has the registration, and carries the insurance, they try to co-opt the general term. In this specific case, the man called himself an engineer because he has the requisite knowledge and has performed the expected activities in the past. The Oregon board wants to control the generic term rather than a more specific title such as P.E. or "Oregon certified P.E." or whatever.
The problem is you're desperately trying to make an orange into an apple. But in your reasoning, entering the highway is NOT illegal, it's the driving recklessly part that we care about, so entering the bathroom should likewise be just fine, it's the assault we care about.
Well, according to the law in question, a former male who has had reassignment surgery (and so has a distinctly female anatomy) must use the men's. Then there are some people whose gender on their birth certificate was decided by the flip of a coin more or less. They may or may not later choose surgery to remove the anatomic ambiguity and the resultant anatomy may or may not match the birth certificate.
Not to mention, there are places where there may be a decidedly violent reaction to a transgendered person in the mens.
Not sure. Around here, we typically just have the mens and the ladies and each has an oversized stall with rails to satisfy accessibility requirements.
The few places that have a family bathroom typically make it accessible as well.
I thought it was fairly easy to understand, once you take one of those actions, no further volitional action is required for injury or death to occur. Once you take the volitional act of entering the opposite gendered bathroom, nothing happens unless you take a further volitional action.
OTOH, if we had gender neutral bathrooms, fathers would feel a lot more comfortable being out and about with their young daughters. Bizarrely, in order to protect the children, a father out with a young daughter cannot go into the bathroom with her. Same for a mother out with a young son.
It's really funny when conservatives get *TRIGGERED*
None of those things you mentioned are even vaguely legal now. Your argument is just as silly as the gun control nuts who figure someone ready to commit mass murder will be stopped cold by a law banning concealed carry.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have any face to face interaction with management at all, let the sneeze be your weapon. Make sure that whenever you get sick, they get sick.
So, your driver's licence, birth certificate and credit cards all say "holophrastic".
Didn't think so.
If you have employees and you aren't paid when you're sick, it's your own fault.
Surely you're not claiming Walmart doesn't make any money if the CEO is home sick?
Easy solutioin without a bunch of crap paperwork. You are allowed to present a caller ID matching any number that is part of your account and no other. So if you want to present your main number, no problem. If you are calling on someone else's behalf, then you'll need authorization from them.
So it will save us from hoaxes but the real bombs will be a total surprise now. And there will be more real bombs now that fake bombs can't create the wanted panic anymore.
And then, when (not if) this is abused for other anonymous tips, anonymous tiops will just go away leaving police wityh less information than they have now. There are many reasons a person with real information may want no further involvement and will only provide that information if they are quite sure that will end their part in it.
But it turns out, often the least productive are the ones who end up with the bulk of the income.
You mean like when a bunch of young men get drafted to go shoot at the Communists?
He has engineered, therefor he is an engineer. What he isn't is a licensed professional engineer.
Neither was DaVinci.
Well since the guy in Oregon didn't attempt to sign off anything nor did he claim that he was entitled to, none of this should be an issue.
That's Oregon's failure. The term 'engineer' in the generic sense has been in use in Europe since before anyone there knew Oregon existed.
That doesn't necessarily hole either. I have performed the act of engineering. I have no relevant degree, no licensing, and no insurance for it. Since I have engineered, I have some logical claim to a general term like engineer. Not all engineering requires all of that. In many cases, that's just fine as long as the work is ultimately reviewed and signed off by a P.E.
I do NOT have any claim to more specific terms such as Licensed Professional Engineer. The Oregon board needs to pull it's cranium from it's posterior and focus on controlling the use of the more specific term rather than trying to redefine a generic term that has been in use centuries longer than they have existed.
The problem comes in when instead of using a more specific term for someone who has passed the exams, has the registration, and carries the insurance, they try to co-opt the general term. In this specific case, the man called himself an engineer because he has the requisite knowledge and has performed the expected activities in the past. The Oregon board wants to control the generic term rather than a more specific title such as P.E. or "Oregon certified P.E." or whatever.
You mean like trying to legislate a birth certificate into a bathroom license due to a rare corner case?
The problem is you're desperately trying to make an orange into an apple. But in your reasoning, entering the highway is NOT illegal, it's the driving recklessly part that we care about, so entering the bathroom should likewise be just fine, it's the assault we care about.
Well, according to the law in question, a former male who has had reassignment surgery (and so has a distinctly female anatomy) must use the men's. Then there are some people whose gender on their birth certificate was decided by the flip of a coin more or less. They may or may not later choose surgery to remove the anatomic ambiguity and the resultant anatomy may or may not match the birth certificate.
Not to mention, there are places where there may be a decidedly violent reaction to a transgendered person in the mens.
That works OKish until idiots pass bathroom laws and make the whole thing an issue.
Not sure. Around here, we typically just have the mens and the ladies and each has an oversized stall with rails to satisfy accessibility requirements.
The few places that have a family bathroom typically make it accessible as well.
And based on the mods, my point is proven.
Wouldn't try it in the USA though, not a gambling man...
Wise decision. Too often, a reasonable explaination just isn't good enough here.
We're not. It isn't the trans-gendered who are trying to pass a stupid law.
Why are idiots trying to turn birth certificates into bathroom licenses?
I thought it was fairly easy to understand, once you take one of those actions, no further volitional action is required for injury or death to occur. Once you take the volitional act of entering the opposite gendered bathroom, nothing happens unless you take a further volitional action.
I have no idea where you live, but around here, family restrooms are nearly as rare as unicorns.
OTOH, if we had gender neutral bathrooms, fathers would feel a lot more comfortable being out and about with their young daughters. Bizarrely, in order to protect the children, a father out with a young daughter cannot go into the bathroom with her. Same for a mother out with a young son.
It's really funny when conservatives get *TRIGGERED*
None of those things you mentioned are even vaguely legal now. Your argument is just as silly as the gun control nuts who figure someone ready to commit mass murder will be stopped cold by a law banning concealed carry.