Did they call the bomb squad and evacuate the school? If not, then it would seem they didn't really think it was a bomb. If they did, then wow that is terrible journalism by the author of the article.
The initial overreaction is vaguely understandable*. Especially when you take the Iriving Texas and kid with Mohamed in his name parts. The follow on is not.
He was suspended after they knew it wasn't a bomb. He is being threatened with being charged with making a hoax bomb after they clearly knew it wasn't a bomb (given the proposed charge).
* That it is, is a good indicator that the US is screwed of course, and apparently succeeding in its attempt to destroy creativity and so on. Holy crap the things we did at school less than 4 decades ago - we'd all be serving lifetime prison terms these days.
Last time I checked, the earth has a certain amount of naturally occurring radioactive elements. In of itself, that would nullify any argument that plutonium might harm you.
No, what nullifies it is that in a double blind experiment the symptoms will not correlate with the presence wifi routers and so on.
Yes, it is two terms to balance the competing advantages and disadvantages of short term and long term politicians. Rather than the "one term" being suggested here.
Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.
Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.
Because people who are "heading for retirement" also keep going to work and working as usual. Sales are *much* lower this decade than they have been previously, if that trend continues at some point they stop selling entirely. Building a delivering happen long after selling so there's obviously a large lag.
Total sales over the last ten years don't seem that relevant to the "heading for retirement" claim. Just like total profits over the last ten years don't mean anything when considering if a company is growing or shrinking.
You need to see how the numbers are changing since "heading" is a claim about the direction of change not the quantities.
So taking orders (rather than deliveries since we care about the future) from 2005 through 2014 (2015 isn't done yet) we get - there are negatives because you can cancel:
To smooth things more for the 747 (380s are too new to bother) the 5 year order totals for 747s starting with 1966-70 and ending with 2010-15 are:
198, 103, 253, 126, 377, 104, 168, 90, 97, 16
Sure 2015 isn't over yet, maybe they'll get 80 orders in the next few months (making for their 2nd highest ever year) but that doesn't seem likely. However, orders have clearly plummeted in the last 5 years (lucky you picked 10 to use to hit the bumper year of 2006).
And yes given those order numbers "on the way out" seems reasonable enough.
Everything that is a deduction on your income taxes lowers your AGI. Everything that is a an exemption lowers your gross income. Poorer people have some deductions (their mortgage interest in many cases, for example), richer people have far more deductions particularly when they are paying accountants to structure their income/expenses/etc to maximize them.
The first link in the search page you posted is all data based on AGI, assuming you knew what you were posting doesn't seem unreasonable.
The top 10% of income earners earn 45% of the income after all, but 68 > 45 I here?
1. The tax system is intentionally progressive, the top end is supposed to pay more as a percent of income by design. 68 > 45 is a feature not a defect. 2. The stats for income are based on AGI - those at the top end have greater access to methods of lowering their AGI through deductions and exemptions and accountants that aren't available to those at the bottom end. So while they earn 45% of the AGI they earn >45% of all income
And yet there are all those countries that do have free (or close to it) tertiary education and somehow still value education and don't seem to have an abundance of "taxpayer-subsidized 4 year frat parties".
I take it you also think that elementary/middle/high schools should also not be little or no cost to attend to avoid those taxpayer-subsidized 12 year frat parties?
There's a large enough junk off people in society, not everyone by any stretch (you for example don't seem to be in this group), that think that access to education should be based upon academic merit and not upon how much money you have. That doesn't mean everyone should go to college, it means that people should not be denied going to college because they can't afford it, but instead because they are too dumb,
Student loans are how the US seems to have decided to "solve" that - quite possibly the worst solution I can think of, but I guess adding private for-profit banks as middle men is the American way:)
Scholarships are how some places "solve" it (the US does that too, though not at the same levels especially if we ignore non-academic merit scholarships) - select students by some criteria and pay for their college fully or partially.
Single purchaser models are how some places "solve" it - the government says "we will pay $X/year for each student take it or leave it", the government pays the university and then possibly tries to recover the money from the individual students (via a tax surcharge say).
In which case you should never confess. Even when caught on video with 2000 eye witnesses and forensic evidence galore. If showing remorse and so on can reduce the sentence then there confessing can get you off easier so that isn't the case and there's no benefit at all to you, so don't do it and hope the jury is full of morons.
And around there does the prosecutor have to charge you with every crime that might have been committed all the time? They link you to a dead person via blood evidence, for example, do they then have to charge you with murder, and manslaughter, and assault (maybe you punched him and got blood all over you but he was then murdered by someone else), and littering (the dead body wasn't placed in the garbage bin), and so on and so on?
If they don't then there's prosecutor discretion involved and why wouldn't they say "confess to the murder, and we won't charge you with the littering" to make their job easier?
Your confession is the only bargaining chip you have (assuming their aren't others to roll over on anyway).
You'd have to be mighty stupid to give it up in return for nothing.
There's plenty of time to confess before you enter your plea in court - you might as well try and get something in return rather than rushing to give it away.
But do you actually think it will save anyone any money? I find it stretched credulity to think that an airline would implement something to make them have less profit.
Whhhhiiiiich is to say that since asses in seats is the most important thing, it stands to reason that the airlines would then want tubs o' goo.
And in the grand tradition of cheaper tickets, perhhaps the slender people who are chearged less ould be willing to fly standby? They re paying less, therefore the airline makes less money on them.
Heavier planes use more fuel. An airline would love to have light passengers with no luggage over heacy passengers with lots of luggage (assuming they are being charged the same), since they would have lower fuel costs and hence make more profit.
They aren't implementing anything to have less profit.
Dry stuff, but remarkable in that they don't have a fatass cost. A lot of cost calculations that are based on asses in seats, but no fatass cost.
Right because they use average weights at the moment. The proposal is to not use average weights but instead actual weights. Obviously you don't calculate costs on things you don't measure at the moment, after all they don't have magic wands to do so.
Because charging a passenger more based on weight does not merely punish those weak assholes who cannot stop feeding themselves. It punishes basketball players, who weight a lot because of height. And what about people like the old professional wrestler, André Roussimoff, who suffered from Gigantism, topping out at 520 pounds - people with this condition just keep growing until they die - early .
So now if we have justified charging more by weight, which justifies charging more by a weight based unavoidable handicap - we now can start charging people for handicaps. You think it doesnt cost the airlines more to carry that person's weight and their wheelchair
Yes. It costs more to fly a heavier plane why shouldn't the people making it heavier pay for that rather than everyone pay for it? Doesn't matter if you are heavier because you are fat, or because you have wheel chair, or because you just happen to be tall.
Those handicapped people who are missing limbs are going to be lighter of course too.
None of which has anything to do with my actual complaint which was that it is in fact a safety issue and hence the scare quotes are stupid.
I own less than some people and hence carry less. I'm 210+ lbs of blubber set to have a heart attack any minute but not as overweight as some people.
Why is not having a problem with costs being reflected in prices smug? I also think that sending a 500 lb package via fedex should cost more than sending a 6 oz one. Why do you think fedex should charge the same those?
Why should people that don't drive as much subsidize those that do through road taxes?
Why should people without children at the age to attend school subsidize those that do through school taxes?
Please note both of those things are government services paid for with taxes. Many people do actually think such things should be user pays and many jurisdictions have moved towards various user pay systems for many government services. For example, where I'm from new roads are often partially funded via road tolls.
Obviously there are hidden costs involved.Food is delivered to your grocery store by roads even if you walk to and from it to actually buy things. Without schools there will likely be higher crime rates. Which is part of why "user pays" isn't going to be a good option all the time.
Why should anyone pay for anything that does not directly benefit them?
Because indirect benefits matter, which should be obvious really.
Oh wait. Because that's how society works.
Do commercial semi-trailers cost exactly the same amount to register as a motorcycle in your society? Do they pay for the same road tolls? Do large fries cost the same as small fries? Does a 5 lb package cost the same to post as a 200 lb package?
Cognitive decay is part of again (though of course it's not 100% universal). Lots of old people are "stupid" even though they weren't a few years ago. And we do find it acceptable to remove their freedom to act as they see fit - those who get particularly bad tend to have a child (or other trusted person) have power of attorney and essentially make all their important decisions for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they call the bomb squad and evacuate the school? If not, then it would seem they didn't really think it was a bomb. If they did, then wow that is terrible journalism by the author of the article.
The initial overreaction is vaguely understandable*. Especially when you take the Iriving Texas and kid with Mohamed in his name parts. The follow on is not.
He was suspended after they knew it wasn't a bomb. He is being threatened with being charged with making a hoax bomb after they clearly knew it wasn't a bomb (given the proposed charge).
* That it is, is a good indicator that the US is screwed of course, and apparently succeeding in its attempt to destroy creativity and so on. Holy crap the things we did at school less than 4 decades ago - we'd all be serving lifetime prison terms these days.
Clearly you lack experience with cops.
Jesus. You've been continually logged in to facebook for over a decade?!?
Get some help.
They are very different problems one of which is much simpler than the other.
Well not without compiling from source with -DBIG_SECURITY_HOLE set, which surely provides a "maybe we are doing this wrong" double check...
no.
Last time I checked, the earth has a certain amount of naturally occurring radioactive elements. In of itself, that would nullify any argument that plutonium might harm you.
No, what nullifies it is that in a double blind experiment the symptoms will not correlate with the presence wifi routers and so on.
The parents are apparently mentally disabled.
Yes, it is two terms to balance the competing advantages and disadvantages of short term and long term politicians. Rather than the "one term" being suggested here.
Sure, but is that better or worse than politicians whose only goal is to extract as much money/power/etc from the system in the term they do get, and who cares if it all falls apart next year when they are banned from being in office anyway.
Or you could be a bit more practical and also consider the non-extreme cases as well.
Because people who are "heading for retirement" also keep going to work and working as usual. Sales are *much* lower this decade than they have been previously, if that trend continues at some point they stop selling entirely. Building a delivering happen long after selling so there's obviously a large lag.
Total sales over the last ten years don't seem that relevant to the "heading for retirement" claim. Just like total profits over the last ten years don't mean anything when considering if a company is growing or shrinking.
You need to see how the numbers are changing since "heading" is a claim about the direction of change not the quantities.
So taking orders (rather than deliveries since we care about the future) from 2005 through 2014 (2015 isn't done yet) we get - there are negatives because you can cancel:
747: 43, 72, 21, 3, 2, -1, -1, 1, 12, 0
380: 20, 7, 23, 9, 4, 32, 19, 9, 42, 13
To smooth things more for the 747 (380s are too new to bother) the 5 year order totals for 747s starting with 1966-70 and ending with 2010-15 are:
198, 103, 253, 126, 377, 104, 168, 90, 97, 16
Sure 2015 isn't over yet, maybe they'll get 80 orders in the next few months (making for their 2nd highest ever year) but that doesn't seem likely. However, orders have clearly plummeted in the last 5 years (lucky you picked 10 to use to hit the bumper year of 2006).
And yes given those order numbers "on the way out" seems reasonable enough.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax...
Everything that is a deduction on your income taxes lowers your AGI. Everything that is a an exemption lowers your gross income. Poorer people have some deductions (their mortgage interest in many cases, for example), richer people have far more deductions particularly when they are paying accountants to structure their income/expenses/etc to maximize them.
The first link in the search page you posted is all data based on AGI, assuming you knew what you were posting doesn't seem unreasonable.
Surely you would expect that?
The top 10% of income earners earn 45% of the income after all, but 68 > 45 I here?
1. The tax system is intentionally progressive, the top end is supposed to pay more as a percent of income by design. 68 > 45 is a feature not a defect.
2. The stats for income are based on AGI - those at the top end have greater access to methods of lowering their AGI through deductions and exemptions and accountants that aren't available to those at the bottom end. So while they earn 45% of the AGI they earn >45% of all income
.
And yet there are all those countries that do have free (or close to it) tertiary education and somehow still value education and don't seem to have an abundance of "taxpayer-subsidized 4 year frat parties".
I take it you also think that elementary/middle/high schools should also not be little or no cost to attend to avoid those taxpayer-subsidized 12 year frat parties?
There's a large enough junk off people in society, not everyone by any stretch (you for example don't seem to be in this group), that think that access to education should be based upon academic merit and not upon how much money you have. That doesn't mean everyone should go to college, it means that people should not be denied going to college because they can't afford it, but instead because they are too dumb,
Student loans are how the US seems to have decided to "solve" that - quite possibly the worst solution I can think of, but I guess adding private for-profit banks as middle men is the American way :)
Scholarships are how some places "solve" it (the US does that too, though not at the same levels especially if we ignore non-academic merit scholarships) - select students by some criteria and pay for their college fully or partially.
Single purchaser models are how some places "solve" it - the government says "we will pay $X/year for each student take it or leave it", the government pays the university and then possibly tries to recover the money from the individual students (via a tax surcharge say).
In which case you should never confess. Even when caught on video with 2000 eye witnesses and forensic evidence galore. If showing remorse and so on can reduce the sentence then there confessing can get you off easier so that isn't the case and there's no benefit at all to you, so don't do it and hope the jury is full of morons.
And around there does the prosecutor have to charge you with every crime that might have been committed all the time? They link you to a dead person via blood evidence, for example, do they then have to charge you with murder, and manslaughter, and assault (maybe you punched him and got blood all over you but he was then murdered by someone else), and littering (the dead body wasn't placed in the garbage bin), and so on and so on?
If they don't then there's prosecutor discretion involved and why wouldn't they say "confess to the murder, and we won't charge you with the littering" to make their job easier?
Your confession is the only bargaining chip you have (assuming their aren't others to roll over on anyway).
You'd have to be mighty stupid to give it up in return for nothing.
There's plenty of time to confess before you enter your plea in court - you might as well try and get something in return rather than rushing to give it away.
Whereas, I might vote for him because it would be hilarious.
Of course Trump's finger on the "launch the nukes" button would be less hilarious, but I'm willing to take that risk.
Who would have thought!
Heavier planes use more fuel. An airline would love to have light passengers with no luggage over heacy passengers with lots of luggage (assuming they are being charged the same), since they would have lower fuel costs and hence make more profit.
They aren't implementing anything to have less profit.
Right because they use average weights at the moment. The proposal is to not use average weights but instead actual weights. Obviously you don't calculate costs on things you don't measure at the moment, after all they don't have magic wands to do so.
Yes. It costs more to fly a heavier plane why shouldn't the people making it heavier pay for that rather than everyone pay for it? Doesn't matter if you are heavier because you are fat, or because you have wheel chair, or because you just happen to be tall.
Those handicapped people who are missing limbs are going to be lighter of course too.
None of which has anything to do with my actual complaint which was that it is in fact a safety issue and hence the scare quotes are stupid.
How is that smug?
I own less than some people and hence carry less. I'm 210+ lbs of blubber set to have a heart attack any minute but not as overweight as some people.
Why is not having a problem with costs being reflected in prices smug? I also think that sending a 500 lb package via fedex should cost more than sending a 6 oz one. Why do you think fedex should charge the same those?
Please note both of those things are government services paid for with taxes. Many people do actually think such things should be user pays and many jurisdictions have moved towards various user pay systems for many government services. For example, where I'm from new roads are often partially funded via road tolls.
Obviously there are hidden costs involved.Food is delivered to your grocery store by roads even if you walk to and from it to actually buy things. Without schools there will likely be higher crime rates. Which is part of why "user pays" isn't going to be a good option all the time.
Because indirect benefits matter, which should be obvious really.
Do commercial semi-trailers cost exactly the same amount to register as a motorcycle in your society? Do they pay for the same road tolls? Do large fries cost the same as small fries? Does a 5 lb package cost the same to post as a 200 lb package?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/u...
Of course the quotes are in the original article.
Sounds good to me, why should people who don't have as much weight in their luggage or their stomachs have to subsidize those that do?
Cognitive decay is part of again (though of course it's not 100% universal). Lots of old people are "stupid" even though they weren't a few years ago. And we do find it acceptable to remove their freedom to act as they see fit - those who get particularly bad tend to have a child (or other trusted person) have power of attorney and essentially make all their important decisions for them.