It is the disciplinary code that the Chicago Board of Ed has established, in coordination with their legal department, to guide the behavioral discipline of students by teachers and administrators. You are correct to say that it is *not* law. But it *is* regulation by an executive branch of government that carries the force of law.
So, are you new to the area? Oh! Do you have kids? The schools in that section of town are great!
Or because they're trying to ask a question to get at a legal-to-consider issue, but framing it poorly.
Are you a US citizen? (when what they should be asking is, "Do you have the legal right to work in this country?"
There's a bunch of reasons--most of them having to do with ignorance--that might bring up a question that has little or no bearing on your ability to do the job.
This is a common misconception about EEOC regulation. There is no such thing as a "question that employers cannot ask during interviews." (Erm, I guess you are not allowed to ask about disabilities...so one exception.) An interviewer can ask whatever they want. Seriously.
The only catch is that if they ask something about your race, sex, religion, or national origin, they can't use your answer as a reason to hire/not hire you. So there's really no point in asking the question. But it's not illegal--of itself--to ask the question. It's just pointless and stupid (and risks alienating an otherwise good job candidate, and possibly opening yourself to litigation if the candidate thinks his/her answer was the basis for not getting the job).
They actually *do* have the ability to enforce things outside their school grounds. At least in my school district.
(Reposting a comment I have also posted below...because it's relevant to your comment. Sorry for dupe-ing.)
I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.
I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a.pdf):
5.14 Use of any computer, including social networking websites, or use of any information technology device, or hacking into the CPS Network to threaten, stalk, harass, bully or otherwise intimidate others, to access student records or other unauthorized information, and/or to otherwise cause a security hazard. [emphasis mine]
(On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list?...discussion for another time...)
Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:
The SCC applies to actions of students during school hours, before and after school, while on school property, while traveling on vehicles funded by the Board, at all school-sponsored events, and while using the CPS Network or any computer, Information Technology Device, or social networking website, when the actions affect the mission or operation of the Chicago Public Schools. Students may also be subject to discipline for Group 5 or 6 Inappropriate Behaviors that occur either off campus or during non-school hours, including actions that involve the use of any computer, Information Technology Device or social networking website, when the misconduct disrupts or may disrupt the orderly educational process in the Chicago Public Schools. [emphasis mine]
Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
(Reposting a comment I have also posted below...because it's relevant to your comment. Sorry for dupe-ing.)
I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.
I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a.pdf):
5.14 Use of any computer, including social networking websites, or use of any information technology device, or hacking into the CPS Network to threaten, stalk, harass, bully or otherwise intimidate others, to access student records or other unauthorized information, and/or to otherwise cause a security hazard. [emphasis mine]
(On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list?...discussion for another time...)
Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:
The SCC applies to actions of students during school hours, before and after school, while on school property, while traveling on vehicles funded by the Board, at all school-sponsored events, and while using the CPS Network or any computer, Information Technology Device, or social networking website, when the actions affect the mission or operation of the Chicago Public Schools. Students may also be subject to discipline for Group 5 or 6 Inappropriate Behaviors that occur either off campus or during non-school hours, including actions that involve the use of any computer, Information Technology Device or social networking website, when the misconduct disrupts or may disrupt the orderly educational process in the Chicago Public Schools. [emphasis mine]
Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.
I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a.pdf):
5.14 Use of any computer, including social networking websites, or use of any information technology device, or hacking into the CPS Network to threaten, stalk, harass, bully or otherwise intimidate others, to access student records or other unauthorized information, and/or to otherwise cause a security hazard. [emphasis mine]
(On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list?...discussion for another time...)
Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:
The SCC applies to actions of students during school hours, before and after school, while on school property, while traveling on vehicles funded by the Board, at all school-sponsored events, and while using the CPS Network or any computer, Information Technology Device, or social networking website, when the actions affect the mission or operation of the Chicago Public Schools. Students may also be subject to discipline for Group 5 or 6 Inappropriate Behaviors that occur either off campus or during non-school hours, including actions that involve the use of any computer, Information Technology Device or social networking website, when the misconduct disrupts or may disrupt the orderly educational process in the Chicago Public Schools. [emphasis mine]
Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
There's a HUGE difference between saying "The Laffer Curve is crap" and saying, "We don't know which side of the Laffer Maximum we're on."
The theory of the Laffer Curve is pretty accurate. It says, basically, that at some rate between 0% tax and 100% tax is how the government can maximize its revenues. It's trying to determine the actual (real life) rate that puts us at the maximum (slope = 0) that is a near-impossibility. That could be 1% or 99% or 43% or 17.5%. We really don't know.
You are correct, however, in stating that when a Republican says, "We need to lower taxes to increase revenues because of the Laffer Curve," they're being misleading at best and downright deceptive and self-serving (wait...I already said politician...) at worst.
I like the corkscrew cup better, personally. It looks 'cooler,' especially when it's full. The obvious issues are likely to be the weight-to-volume ratio difference between the cups, and the fact that the flexible cup shown in the current article collapses to a smaller volume for storage.
The thing that strikes me about this version is that essentially they're using capillary action in micrograv to create a 'virtual straw' of sorts inside the cup. Clever result.
You invest $100 in Company X.
Company X uses your money to make an 80% profit (good job investing!)
The government taxes the corporation at 37%.
This means that the earnings passed back to you as a shareholder are $100 + $80 - ($80 *.37) = $150
Woohoo! $150 means you made $50 in capital gains!
That $50 capital gains is again taxed at a capital gains rate. For long-term investments (one year + one day), this is currently (IIRC) %15.
This is where the notion of double-taxation comes in. The returns on your investment are taxed twice--once when it is counted as 'income' by the corporation, and again when it is counted as income by the individual. This is why some say that capital gains tax should be eliminated (a notion I do *not* agree with) or even that corporate tax should be eliminated (a notion I agree with even less). In any case, there is certainly double-taxation going on with investments. And that's why capital gains are taxed at a (generally) much lower rate than the higher income brackets are.
OK. I was unaware of that. From what I remembered, the whole binary liquid bomb had been debunked as 'difficult to mix ahead of time because it's unstable; impossible to mix on the plane because of the long times involved and the specific conditions needed to avoid premature detonation (which would not be explosive enough), and very hard to detonate without attracting a whole lot of attention.'
Apparently that notion was wrong.
Nonetheless, I stand by the rest of my statement. DHS/TSA responds to awkward attempts at terrorism with far-reaching overreaction, while honest-to-goodness systemic threats are treated as non-issues. This is a problem.
I first found this incident via Bruce Schneier & Wired.
The most telling thing, for me, was this section of the linked article:
“DHS and the FBI are gathering facts surrounding the report of a water pump failure in Springfield, Illinois,” according to a statement released by DHS spokesman Peter Boogaard. “At this time there is no credible corroborated data that indicates a risk to critical infrastructure entities or a threat to public safety.”
So...in the instance of a single shoe bomber, stopped by his own stupidity and the efforts of other airline passengers, TSA (a section of DHS) responds by calling it a systemic risk to air travel, and we must all take off our shoes. In the instance of a plot to use liquid explosives, which probably wouldn't have worked and was stopped in the planning stages, TSA responds by calling it a systemic risk and we must all limit ourselves to 3oz bottles of liquids that fit in a quart size bag. In the instance of a single underwear bomber, stopped by his own stupidity, TSA responds by calling it a systemic risk to air travel, and we must all be subject to X-ray/millimeter wave scanners and/or the big Grope.
In the instance of SCADA hacking, which could conceivably harm our infrastructure on a significant and systemic level from afar, with little/no risk of the perpetrators being caught, DHS responds by saying, "No big deal."
So... you're saying that you were vaccinated, and your daughter was vaccinated, but you both still got Pertussis.
But we're all supposed to get vaccinations because that will protect us from getting Pertussis.
Questions: A) How likely is it to contract Pertussis in a population of completely unvaccinated people? B) What are the risks (side effects) and probabilities of those risks to that population if 100% of the population is vaccinated? C) By what amount is the risk of contracting pertussis lowered if 100% of people get vaccinated against that disease?
If C > B, then vaccinate 'em all. If B > C, then the cure is worse than the disease. If there's some balance that makes sense for at-risk sub-groups within the population, then tailor the recommendation to those sub-groups.
Better yet, if your state allows, vote for the candidate you'd rather see in the main election from the other party. If you're a Democrat, pick your favorite Republican. If you're a Republican, pick your favorite Democrat. This will moderate the parties and make things better.
In Chicago, there's a great hipster coffeeshop called The Wormhole (warning, the website sucks). It features all sorts of great '80s memorabilia like plastic lunchboxes, Goonies posters, Star Wars action figures, etc etc. But the absolute best feature is a real life, honest-to-goodness DeLorean, complete with a food processor glued to the back and dressed up to look like Mr. Fusion, and a California license plate that reads "OUTATIME".
So yeah, there's plenty of 80s nostalgia out there, if you're willing to look for it.
A) Infrared is line of sight, so if it's a separate sensor, you stick a piece of metallic duct tape over it, and problem is solved.
B) Companies will begin selling small dots of IR filtering tape that you can stick on the lens of the camera. Price is $5 for a sheet. Problem is solved.
It seems that no matter the implementation of this, the workaround is trivial.
People talk such NONSENSE and BUNK when it comes to free speech. No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. There is a reason that these things are illegal. There are reasons for harassment and stalking laws. These are good things even if they violate your overly broad view of what free speech means.
You are correct--no decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. But racist/sexist slurs are not--of themselves--illegal (they can be if they are part of some physical threat of harm, incitement to riot, false reports/alarms to cops, or a small handful of other things).
Acceptable =/= legal. Unacceptable =/= illegal. There is a subset of actions/speech which are both indefensible and unacceptable, but nonetheless legal. White supremacist groups fall in this category. They have every right to hold their beliefs, share pamphlets, etc, so long as they don't threaten others with physical harm or incite others to do so.
From IL General Assembly's website
"(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or
(2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such fire exists; or
(3) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to another a false alarm to the effect that a bomb or other explosive of any nature or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place that its explosion or release would endanger human life, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such bomb, explosive or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place; or
(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed; or
(5) Enters upon the property of another and for a lewd or unlawful purpose deliberately looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in it; or
(6) While acting as a collection agency as defined in the "Collection Agency Act" or as an employee of such collection agency, and while attempting to collect an alleged debt, makes a telephone call to the alleged debtor which is designed to harass, annoy or intimidate the alleged debtor; or
(7) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Children and Family Services under Section 4 of the "Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act"; or
(8) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Public Health under the Nursing Home Care Act or the MR/DD Community Care Act; or
(9) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the police department or fire department of any municipality or fire protection district, or any privately owned and operated ambulance service, a false request for an ambulance, emergency medical technicianambulance or emergency medical technician paramedic knowing at the time there is no reasonable ground for believing that such assistance is required; or
(10) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report under Article II of "An Act in relation to victims of violence and abuse", approved September 16, 1984, as amended; or
(11) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to any public safety agency without the reasonable grounds necessary to believe that transmitting such a report is necessary for the safety and welfare of the public; or
(12) Calls the number "911" for the purpose of making or transmitting a false alarm or complaint and reporting information when, at the time the call or transmission is made, the person knows there is no reasonable ground for making the call or transmission and further knows that the call or transmission could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency; or
(13) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a threat of destruction of a school building or school property, or a threat of violence, death, or bodily harm directed against persons at a school, school function, or school event, whether or not school is in session."
1--causing a ruckus in public
2-4--intentionally sending false alarms to cops or first responders
5--peepin
Slashdot Mirror
It is the disciplinary code that the Chicago Board of Ed has established, in coordination with their legal department, to guide the behavioral discipline of students by teachers and administrators. You are correct to say that it is *not* law. But it *is* regulation by an executive branch of government that carries the force of law.
+1 Insightful Here you've hit the nail on the head. All the way through.
Or because they're trying to ask a question to get at a legal-to-consider issue, but framing it poorly.
There's a bunch of reasons--most of them having to do with ignorance--that might bring up a question that has little or no bearing on your ability to do the job.
This is a common misconception about EEOC regulation. There is no such thing as a "question that employers cannot ask during interviews." (Erm, I guess you are not allowed to ask about disabilities...so one exception.) An interviewer can ask whatever they want. Seriously.
The only catch is that if they ask something about your race, sex, religion, or national origin, they can't use your answer as a reason to hire/not hire you. So there's really no point in asking the question. But it's not illegal--of itself--to ask the question. It's just pointless and stupid (and risks alienating an otherwise good job candidate, and possibly opening yourself to litigation if the candidate thinks his/her answer was the basis for not getting the job).
Since I'm going to get a "Citation Needed" tag, here you go: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2011/01/10/is-that-interview-question-legal
(Reposting a comment I have also posted below...because it's relevant to your comment. Sorry for dupe-ing.)
I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.
I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a
(On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list? ...discussion for another time...)
Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:
Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
I'm a member of a Local School Council in a neighborhood elementary school in Chicago Public Schools. I heard of a kid (7th grade) that was punished in the school (suspension, possible expulsion) for bullying remarks made on Facebook--stuff he posted outside of school hours, off school grounds, and on his own computer. (He basically called some other kid 'gay' and threatened to beat him up, swore a bunch, etc. It was nasty stuff.) I wondered how the school was able to discipline a kid for something that was done completely outside the school's area of control.
I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a
(On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list? ...discussion for another time...)
Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:
Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
I decided to ask the assistant principal/disciplinarian at the school what the guidelines were. He pointed me to the "Student Code of Conduct" (SCC) (it's a
(On a side note, Group 5 offenses are considered those that "most seriously disrupt" school functioning, and include aggravated assault, inappropriate sexual conduct battery, criminal damage to property/vandalism over $500, and physical assault to a teacher. Does social network bullying really belong in that list? ...discussion for another time...)
Still, I wondered how the school could enforce that regulation outside of school hours, off school property, on a privately-owned computer. The disciplinarian told me that they were allowed to, and again pointed to the preface of the SCC:
Now, I don't know what kind of standard is required to be met to say that something "may disrupt the orderly educational process." I'd suppose that calling a kid a name on the playground could accomplish that, but there's no written proof of such events as there is on Facebook. Sure, the bullying kid should have gotten a tough talking to about appropriate behavior. Probably the school should have called the parents of the bully to deal with the situation. Maybe they did those things too, I don't know. But they definitely disciplined the kid in school because of something he did outside of school.
It still kind of boggles my mind that we give teachers and administrators (who are largely untrained in such matters) the power to enforce school discipline outside the purview of their schools. But that's the system we have in the city I live in.
There's a HUGE difference between saying "The Laffer Curve is crap" and saying, "We don't know which side of the Laffer Maximum we're on."
The theory of the Laffer Curve is pretty accurate. It says, basically, that at some rate between 0% tax and 100% tax is how the government can maximize its revenues. It's trying to determine the actual (real life) rate that puts us at the maximum (slope = 0) that is a near-impossibility. That could be 1% or 99% or 43% or 17.5%. We really don't know.
You are correct, however, in stating that when a Republican says, "We need to lower taxes to increase revenues because of the Laffer Curve," they're being misleading at best and downright deceptive and self-serving (wait...I already said politician...) at worst.
I thought for sure this story was going to be a dupe of a different solution to the drink-from-a-cup-in-microgravity problem: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/08/01/17/2323236/corkscrew-cups-could-keep-space-drinks-flowing
I like the corkscrew cup better, personally. It looks 'cooler,' especially when it's full. The obvious issues are likely to be the weight-to-volume ratio difference between the cups, and the fact that the flexible cup shown in the current article collapses to a smaller volume for storage.
The thing that strikes me about this version is that essentially they're using capillary action in micrograv to create a 'virtual straw' of sorts inside the cup. Clever result.
Only if it is reinvested in the stock. If it is actually paid out to the shareholder, it is taxable income.
Here's how it is a double-dip.
.37) = $150
You invest $100 in Company X.
Company X uses your money to make an 80% profit (good job investing!)
The government taxes the corporation at 37%.
This means that the earnings passed back to you as a shareholder are $100 + $80 - ($80 *
Woohoo! $150 means you made $50 in capital gains!
That $50 capital gains is again taxed at a capital gains rate. For long-term investments (one year + one day), this is currently (IIRC) %15.
This is where the notion of double-taxation comes in. The returns on your investment are taxed twice--once when it is counted as 'income' by the corporation, and again when it is counted as income by the individual. This is why some say that capital gains tax should be eliminated (a notion I do *not* agree with) or even that corporate tax should be eliminated (a notion I agree with even less). In any case, there is certainly double-taxation going on with investments. And that's why capital gains are taxed at a (generally) much lower rate than the higher income brackets are.
I love reading fiction!
OK. I was unaware of that. From what I remembered, the whole binary liquid bomb had been debunked as 'difficult to mix ahead of time because it's unstable; impossible to mix on the plane because of the long times involved and the specific conditions needed to avoid premature detonation (which would not be explosive enough), and very hard to detonate without attracting a whole lot of attention.'
Apparently that notion was wrong.
Nonetheless, I stand by the rest of my statement. DHS/TSA responds to awkward attempts at terrorism with far-reaching overreaction, while honest-to-goodness systemic threats are treated as non-issues. This is a problem.
The most telling thing, for me, was this section of the linked article:
So...in the instance of a single shoe bomber, stopped by his own stupidity and the efforts of other airline passengers, TSA (a section of DHS) responds by calling it a systemic risk to air travel, and we must all take off our shoes. In the instance of a plot to use liquid explosives, which probably wouldn't have worked and was stopped in the planning stages, TSA responds by calling it a systemic risk and we must all limit ourselves to 3oz bottles of liquids that fit in a quart size bag. In the instance of a single underwear bomber, stopped by his own stupidity, TSA responds by calling it a systemic risk to air travel, and we must all be subject to X-ray/millimeter wave scanners and/or the big Grope.
In the instance of SCADA hacking, which could conceivably harm our infrastructure on a significant and systemic level from afar, with little/no risk of the perpetrators being caught, DHS responds by saying, "No big deal."
There's something very...wrong here.
So... you're saying that you were vaccinated, and your daughter was vaccinated, but you both still got Pertussis.
But we're all supposed to get vaccinations because that will protect us from getting Pertussis.
Questions:
A) How likely is it to contract Pertussis in a population of completely unvaccinated people?
B) What are the risks (side effects) and probabilities of those risks to that population if 100% of the population is vaccinated?
C) By what amount is the risk of contracting pertussis lowered if 100% of people get vaccinated against that disease?
If C > B, then vaccinate 'em all. If B > C, then the cure is worse than the disease. If there's some balance that makes sense for at-risk sub-groups within the population, then tailor the recommendation to those sub-groups.
If you haven't done the studies, then shut up.
Finally! Now we know how Dude Perfect makes all those shots!
Please PLEASE let it be Sarah Palin!
/I'm a registered Republican
//I can't stand Palin
"...and vote in the primaries."
Better yet, if your state allows, vote for the candidate you'd rather see in the main election from the other party. If you're a Democrat, pick your favorite Republican. If you're a Republican, pick your favorite Democrat. This will moderate the parties and make things better.
In Chicago, there's a great hipster coffeeshop called The Wormhole (warning, the website sucks). It features all sorts of great '80s memorabilia like plastic lunchboxes, Goonies posters, Star Wars action figures, etc etc. But the absolute best feature is a real life, honest-to-goodness DeLorean, complete with a food processor glued to the back and dressed up to look like Mr. Fusion, and a California license plate that reads "OUTATIME".
So yeah, there's plenty of 80s nostalgia out there, if you're willing to look for it.
Good Lord, it's awful.
A couple examples of completely inappropriate non-sequitur groupings:
Lost, but only sort of the TV show
Obama, only not.
These were gleaned from my own FB page over the last two days.
I really hate this 'feature'.
A) Infrared is line of sight, so if it's a separate sensor, you stick a piece of metallic duct tape over it, and problem is solved.
B) Companies will begin selling small dots of IR filtering tape that you can stick on the lens of the camera. Price is $5 for a sheet. Problem is solved.
It seems that no matter the implementation of this, the workaround is trivial.
People talk such NONSENSE and BUNK when it comes to free speech. No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. There is a reason that these things are illegal. There are reasons for harassment and stalking laws. These are good things even if they violate your overly broad view of what free speech means.
You are correct--no decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. But racist/sexist slurs are not--of themselves--illegal (they can be if they are part of some physical threat of harm, incitement to riot, false reports/alarms to cops, or a small handful of other things).
Acceptable =/= legal. Unacceptable =/= illegal. There is a subset of actions/speech which are both indefensible and unacceptable, but nonetheless legal. White supremacist groups fall in this category. They have every right to hold their beliefs, share pamphlets, etc, so long as they don't threaten others with physical harm or incite others to do so.
From IL General Assembly's website
"(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or
(2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such fire exists; or
(3) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to another a false alarm to the effect that a bomb or other explosive of any nature or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place that its explosion or release would endanger human life, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such bomb, explosive or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in such place; or
(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed; or
(5) Enters upon the property of another and for a lewd or unlawful purpose deliberately looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in it; or
(6) While acting as a collection agency as defined in the "Collection Agency Act" or as an employee of such collection agency, and while attempting to collect an alleged debt, makes a telephone call to the alleged debtor which is designed to harass, annoy or intimidate the alleged debtor; or
(7) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Children and Family Services under Section 4 of the "Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act"; or
(8) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Public Health under the Nursing Home Care Act or the MR/DD Community Care Act; or
(9) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the police department or fire department of any municipality or fire protection district, or any privately owned and operated ambulance service, a false request for an ambulance, emergency medical technicianambulance or emergency medical technician paramedic knowing at the time there is no reasonable ground for believing that such assistance is required; or
(10) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report under Article II of "An Act in relation to victims of violence and abuse", approved September 16, 1984, as amended; or
(11) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to any public safety agency without the reasonable grounds necessary to believe that transmitting such a report is necessary for the safety and welfare of the public; or
(12) Calls the number "911" for the purpose of making or transmitting a false alarm or complaint and reporting information when, at the time the call or transmission is made, the person knows there is no reasonable ground for making the call or transmission and further knows that the call or transmission could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency; or
(13) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a threat of destruction of a school building or school property, or a threat of violence, death, or bodily harm directed against persons at a school, school function, or school event, whether or not school is in session."
1--causing a ruckus in public
2-4--intentionally sending false alarms to cops or first responders
5--peepin
How much does a gallon of electricity weigh, anyways?
Please provide your answer in Libraries of Congress units. Show your work.
How much does a gallon of electricity weigh, anyways?
Please provide your answer in Libraries of Congress units. Show your work.