It is a sponsorship if the loans provided by the government are below market rate. Which I would assume they are otherwise no one would apply for them.
That's simply not true. It's not state sponsored loans. By your logic no one would ever by CDs (not the music kind) because they pay below market rates. Everyone would buy "above market rates" investments. But there's something CDs have going for them that makes them a nice investment in some cases. Can you guess what it is? It's pretty much guaranteed... it may be less... but it's guaranteed.
Student loans from the government are the same thing only it's the government doing the investing. It's only below market rates that they demand because there is no risk about being paid back. They are giving you money that you will pay back... even if you can't pay anything else you will pay these loans back. Banks have to charge more because there is risk involved for them. For the government, giving student loans is a GOOD investment just about every single time, because no matter what you are on the hook if you take the loan. A guaranteed investment almost always pays a lower return... that's just how the world works.
Plus like I said there are stage colleges and even universities like the University of California.
And tuition just keeps going up. I wonder why. It's not 10% more expensive to educate the same number of people every year is it? No, it's partly so people will take bigger loans... because THEY (both government and schools) know that idiots like me (I cannot fully separate myself from my past stupidity) will see it as a requirement and will do whatever I have to do to make it happen.
I think it is fairly obvious that professions which used to be learned on the job have been switching to college based for a long time. One example is programming and software development in general but there are certainly a whole lot more of them. At one time dentists did not require any special certification and in fact many hairdressers were dentists. This started changing in the XIXth century. In the case of dentistry in many places in the world you cannot do the job unless you have a degree. In the case of software development not having a degree will preclude you from being even considered as an employee in many places.
I think it's fairly obvious that medicine or dentistry is completely different than hairdressing. There might even still be hairdressers that are also dentists or hygienists, but really, who cares? Somewhere along the way we learned that there's enough to know about the medical field that it makes sense to require people to actually be SPECIFICALLY EDUCATED before they can practice medicine.
Electricians don't have to go to trade school. If you know an electrician (there are plenty) that will take you on then you can become their apprentice and work with them. I talk to electricians a few times a year that all wish they could find good help, but nobody wants to "work" anymore. The mere suggestion that you can't do on the job training for professional careers any more is crazy because no amount of education will make you a master electrician (a designation required to get many electrician jobs). It's work experience that does it... that's right... on the job training. Same goes for plumbers, locksmiths, machinists, and more.
I worked in a tire factory and and a medical device manufacturing factory. At the tire place no one needed a degree. It was all on the job training... Watch out for that big ass tire coming down the aisle on a hook and make sure you do what's needed to it without getting yourself killed. I didn't need a degree to do that. It paid pretty good too.
At the medical manufacturing place it was extremely low tolerance medical tools (think 'screws for putting your pelvis back together after you're in a motorcycle crash' and you'll have an idea of the types of things made there). Much of the work was st
You do realize didn't answer the question, right? But, then again you're not the one the question was directed to so I suppose that's reasonable.
In reading your response you imply that loans create some kind of "sponsorship" or something. I don't think that's right at all. Government loans should actually be looked at as an additional tax of whatever the interest rate is on the loan - not a sponsoring of your educational desires. For example, if some unsuspecting young person borrows 10,000 USD to go to a state school one semester what they don't see is that statistically they'll get to pay between $200 and $400 bucks a year (interest) for next 10 - 20 years for the privilege. That interest is a cost the student is paying and is pure, guaranteed profit for the government since student loans can't be bankrupted. Those same loans also make the borrower beholden to the government during their entire college experience because they have to be renewed each year (if not each semester).
I'm still waiting to hear how master/apprentice programs have been offloaded as well as on-the-job training. I just haven't seen that to be the case and I'd really like to hear the Uberbah's rationalization behind that statement so I can understand it.
I'm interested in hearing more about this so I can understand it. How is anything you mentioned offloaded to the tax payer via "higher education"? My question is serious... I'd like to understand the thinking behind the theory.
I do understand the physical key argument. When it comes to a physical key and there is proof that you did in fact have control of the key then an explanation will probably be in order for why your can't provide it. Heck, if they're filming the safe 24/7 and see the parolee open it up then maybe that would be grounds for forcing them to provide a combination. They've already proved access so now it's just down to what's in it - and if the have a warrant then they get to know.
In that case the contents are the the primary goal and serve as evidence of wrong doing because they already know you have access to them.
My example, as you saw, the police didn't not know that the parolee had access. It was a case where merely being ABLE to open the safe is what constituted breaking the law and proving that he could do so would be testifying against themself. What was in the safe was not necessarily proof of crime, but being able to open the safe was... crazy huh?... that's our world.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Die Hard (40 stories up) lines. McClain sneaks up on one of terrorists, puts a gun to the guy's head, and tells him to "drop it... it's th e police".
Terrorist: You won't hurt me.
McClain: Oh yeah? Why's that?
Terrorist: Because you're a policeman. There are rules for policeman.
McClain: (Snidely) Yeah. That's what my captain keeps telling me. (Whack)
There are rules. But if they're not enforceable, then they're only there to make you feel good. And people being asked to do the job won't give a damn about the rules when it comes right down to it because at most it will result in some time off (paid or unpaid).
IANAL - this is just my understanding and what I've been told by friendly lawyers and friendly police over time -
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. You still have to answer a question if the answer alone is not itself incriminating.
No, you don't have to say anything. EVER. You don't have to talk to them at all before you are arrested because they're just some other person. Yes they're police officers, but unless you've been detained you don't have to say anything. Once you've been detained then you still don't have to say anything. If you like you can confirm that you've been detained and then ask to contact your lawyer or to be released / arrested. Then once you've been arrested you have the right to remain silent. At no point do you ever really have to say anything. It will escalate or deescalate itself on it's own. You might exchange niceties and be polite to move things along, but even that is a risk and you don't have to do it.
But a question like "what is the combination to your safe" would not necessarily be self-incrimination, because the combination itself doesn't incriminate you, and the court already knows you know, even if inside the safe are documents that show you committed a crime.
If you've been arrested (and even before so) then anything you say can and will be used against you. That means it's testimony and the fifth amendment says that you don't have to say anything at all if it means you're providing testimony against yourself. You do not have to testify in your own defense period - unless you waive that right. And then you're bound to answer all questions. You either testify or you don't... you don't pick and choose the questions you will answer...
Consider the way this is actually being applied. Think about it in the context of a parolee who is not allowed to possess a firearm. If the police SUSPECT or even KNOW there is a firearm in the safe then that's all fine and dandy, but asking the parolee to hand over the combination would essentially be asking them to show that they have control (ie. possession) over what is in said safe. So, in essence, asking them to tell you what may (or may not) be in their head would be asking them to incriminate themselves via their testimony.
By not providing a combination the parolee can show (or argue later) that they are NOT in control of the safe's contents (maybe their roommate controls the key, maybe the safe was left in the house when they bought it, maybe they just rent out the space and don't maintain access themselves) or that they don't know the combination. In those cases the prosecution would have a hard time proving that the person did have "possession" of the contents of the safe.
If the person provides the combination then they'll be presumed to have had access and likely knowledge of what was in it.
Let's try another example. Let's say you know the combination. Your spouse is a drug dealer and you do not know it, but you know the safe combination because it's the same as your shared ATM card or some other crap like that. You, with all good intentions, tell the government the combination and earn yourself a trip to jail - Just for knowing and telling the police the combination!
Let the police do their job and let your lawyers to their job. When you start doing the police's job for them you make it harder on your lawyer... even when you're innocent - perhaps moreso.
It's worse than that. Let's say you admit to banging his wife to keep out of the original legal trouble. But you were too drunk the previous night (and possibly still the next day when answering his questions) to remember clearly. It was actually his mom, not his wife... or maybe it was his sister and his wife.... oh well. Either way, now you've lied to a cop (on accident) - so you've NOW committed a crime just by explaining why you hadn't committed the other crime. Better to just STFU.
We don't live in a popular democracy... so your last question is moot. And the very observation that "fact-based reasoning" appears to be "too much of a stretch" should cause you to take comfort that we don't live in said popular democracy.
But I do agree that it would be nice if the actual facts were considered in this and other issues.
I don't think denzacar was talking about it linearly. Especially since he was talking about it being spread out. And also because the discussion is about air... no one talks about air using linear measurements.
The way I understood it was that there was all this volume of atmosphere that the these items would be going up against. That's why the more spread out it is the better. The more you spread it out the more volume of atmosphere there is to absorb the impact.
As far as the 1000s comment I would say that if you've got a barrier at least 11km deep (containing 75% of the atmosphere as you say) and you can spread out the impact over 100km of surface area then there's your 1000km of atmosphere that is absorbing the impact.... as opposed to it hitting in one much smaller area that puts up far less of a hindering force.
That's just my understanding of what denzacar said... but my interpretation may not necessarily be correct and I'm not intending to put words in their mouth.
Well, presumably, when he filed for that patent he knew what he was patenting. He and his lawyers came up with the a set of "claims" that are the actual meat of the IP. And if some actor later comes and inserts a product into the market that could not have been created without stepping on one or more of the claims in the patent then he knows one of two things:
(1) he has a valid complaint that the person is stepping on his IP
or
(2) whoever wrote the claims in his patent did so in such that there was a work around that these other actors are utilizing
[Random note: The possibility of (2) is why you should hire an actual patent attorney to write your patent rather than trying to do it yourself. I have experience with this and the value of a decent attorney, if you can afford them, is not to be minimized.]
In any case, that's what a patent lawsuit is about. I say "you can't do that without violating my patent". Now you must prove that you found a way to do it without violating my patent or you must prove that the patent should never have been granted. If you can't do either one of those then you pay for using my IP.
Numerous voters treat the current president as a hero who only poops sunshine and rainbows and is constantly fighting the good fight. And numerous voters treat the previous one as such also. It doesn't make either one of those an "American hero" - not even close.
If it's an adult and there is no indication of a crime AGAINST the missing person, then the correct solution is a Private Investigator. Not the police. The police should be focusing their efforts on stopping actual crimes and responding to actual events... not highly improbable events with no evidence to back up that the event even occurred.
Also, if the issue is debt / other obligations then that's yet another case that you should use a Private Investigator to find them. The fact that someone owes YOU money doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE should pay for the search. There's a pretty good chance that in most cases more resources will be spent to find the person that what than they even owed to start with - especially if it's the police doing the searching.
If the cops can find "missing person" because they're just hiding out (rather than foul play) then so can a private investigator. If the PI cant, then its unlikely the police officer will.
Now, if they're skipping bond or breaking some other existing judgement that is a criminal offense (rather than a civil one) then there's at least a case of asking the police to get involved. They'd be investigating and stopping an actual criminal offense.
Other than that... if you wanna know where a missing adult is then spend your own dime to find 'em. It'll be done more efficiently and more thoroughly with the added benefit of letting the cops worry about what they're actually supposed to be doing.
All of this assumes there's not circumstances that indicate foul play. If there are, then the search should be underway. Also, while one person being missing is relatively unlikely it becomes much more unlikely to be "no big deal" when several people have been reported missing (becoming even more unlikely with each additional one). Obviously that should be looked into as a likely criminal event simply because of how unlikely the events are as a collection.
A: Of course anything even remotely resembling a union is "communist"...
Maybe. But it doesn't really matter.
B:..., so we can rule that option right out.
Wrong. Why? Because what described in your first and second paragraphs doesn't resemble the unions of which you speak of in the last. (B) has nothing to do with (A). Therefore, you SHOULD be happy that what you described is not only possible, but quite preferable for many professions. For some reason I doubt you will be happy though.
And just so you know, electricians already do this. And plumbers. You know, those middle class, hard working professionals. Even independent contractors go through the same process for these professions. The practice isn't gone. Again, you should be happy with me pointing this out, but I doubt you will be.
I'm only commenting to bring your comment to light for those that browse with anonymous cowards hidden. I don't know if you're "right" because this isn't my area of expertise, but I will say the comment is very informative, if it is indeed accurate.
Yes, but if you read the article, or hell, even the summary, then you'd know it was about primes.
Some AC felt the need to make a lame '42' reference. Then, against all odds, it somehow managed to get back around to being on topic when someone else gave it a -1, thus rendering it a nicely prime 41. Then you came along and decided to be an ass. Well done.
But wait! With 41 you don't just get an "on topic" prime number. You'll also find that 41 is actually a twin in the twin prime pair of (41, 43)! That's right, it is completely on topic... so.... nah nah nahnah nah.
Now, as far as I can tell I've managed to make two relevant posts on the topic out of a seemingly impossible "42 duh duh" comment. On the other hand, you've managed only to be an asshole and contribute nothing other than bad karma. As far as you comment about making more money goes, I'm confused, who knows, maybe I got whooshed or missed a meme or something. Or maybe I've just been trolled. But, maybe you'd make more if you weren't such an asshole and instead just let people have a good time without trying to piss on 'em. Especially when it doesn't even matter.
I really am sorry if I was off topic because I was under the impression we were talking about news. You said "fox news" and so I mistakenly thought we were talking about news. You really consider the Daily Show news? I'll say no. Rachel Maddow is news? No.
I suppose I should have realized that by Fox News you meant the channel... since MSNBC is also a channel (even though they have MSNBC news also).
In any case, to argue that somehow Rachel Maddow is somehow a beacon of factual speaking is craziness. Even compared to the whatever Fox News talking head you want to use. And the Daily show is GREAT. The problem is he can get away with lying whenever he wants because it's in humor and if someone doesn't get it they can just be called to dense to get the joke. Everybody laughs (because he's funny), but he can be as loose as he wants with the facts because its humor based.
And you don't think the network stations have a point of view? They're pro-establishment, which is why something like Occupy Wall Street can go on for weeks without media coverage, while a random, small pro-Corporate Tea Party rally gets instant coverage.
I think everybody has a slant. I never said anyone didn't. All I asked what why they had to both report the facts and their opinion. Let them do whichever, but once they start reporting their opinion then we should expect their "facts" to have a certain amount of bias to them. That's all I meant.
As far as the coverage of the Tea Party and Occupy was concerned... I assume you're joking... or high (nothing wrong with that). If you think either "movement" didn't get covered or got covered then your view is completely colored by your politics. Nothing wrong with that, but I guarantee that people who lean a different way see the news coverage exactly opposite to the way you do. In their view Occupy was made out to be some wonderful grassroots campaign made up of people with higher than average intelligence and and optimistic view on life who just want a "fair shake" (someone elses money). But the tea party rallies were made of racist bigots who wanted nothing more than to tear the country apart and starve the children. It was all horse shit. Neither group was as bad or as good as anyone said, but political view points change that... so they should be left out of the news.
Ha ha. At least they enumerated the "his or her" part. We would have never figured that one out if not for them explicitily allowing for either! What what if it's a "both" or a "neither"... does the fact that they explicitly enumerated it mean that those other classes have been left out of being covered?
I wish I had mod points right now. I think this may be the best / most useful comment I've read in quite a while. Not political, not attacking, not pandering. Just insightful and informative. Thank you.
I don't have cable, nor do I want it for anything other than sports (so i get to opt out of the 'slashdork' channels you mentioned). Honestly, I've thought a couple of times about getting cable again - for exactly the reasons you spelled out. I thought, man, I could get basic cable and then I'd get ESPN and TNT and could watch so many more games, especially playoff games. That would be great and for just $40 or so!
But then my fucking BRAIN kicks in and my memory takes over and the truth starts to show up again. Cable doesn't come with DVR in my neck of the woods and since I work hours that aren't always standard (like many people) I would need something that could allow me to watch my SHOWS on my timeline. Plus, pretty much everyone likes to be able to just pause stuff and come back to it later. Okay $10 per month for DVR.
Just $50 bucks.
WTF? That's not the HD cable and DVR teir. Fine... another 15 bucks a month.
Just $65 bucks now to have something that actually resembles my netflix / hulu setup that I get for $15.
So now I'm home from work and I'm ready to just shut my brain off for a while (before I get started doing even more work) so I want to watch one of my shows I've recorded with my handy dandy DVR. But guess what, the wife just got the kids to bed and wants to watch her shows while she folds laundry. I personally hate effing "Pickers" or "Animal Cops" so I guess I'll just leave the TV to her and try to tune it out. Sadly, no sports.
But since I only came back to cable for sports then giving up the TV to animal planet defeats the whole purpose, right!? I Guess we'll just have to add another box to the system. After all, why should I get to watch basketball and her miss her shows? So, here's another $10-$15 box depending on if it also has DVR. Of course, Grandma who lives with us because she can't live on her own will also want to be able to decide what she wants to watch (this is the same as the kids in your example) so she gets her own box at another expense.
So now $80-$90.
But I still don't have the latest and greatest movies. Maybe I should add some movie tiers? Well, shit, now we're right back where we started at over $100 for cable and we haven't even gotten to taxes, fees, etc.
Many people who have jobs and lives often can't make use of a "constant stream of everything"... sorry to burst your bubble on your little rant there... but just because someone chooses to operate in the market in a way different than you doesn't necessarily make them idiots. It might actually mean that you're the idiot and that you have no idea what you're talking about. Or it could just mean you're different and have different needs. You might not be willing to pay a premium for on demand, but someone else will be willing to do so because it fits their lifestyle. Companies that can respect that will find new opportunities. People that can't respect that (when it is not a moral issue) can safely be ignored.
Fair enough. I concede your point and wish to change my response to reflect it. It still doesn't change what I was saying... metal detectors detect something alright, and "conductive materials" is not a sufficiently descriptive answer for what they detect (much like how "water" in it's pure form does not effectively conduct electricity) .
Slashdot Mirror
It is a sponsorship if the loans provided by the government are below market rate. Which I would assume they are otherwise no one would apply for them.
That's simply not true. It's not state sponsored loans. By your logic no one would ever by CDs (not the music kind) because they pay below market rates. Everyone would buy "above market rates" investments. But there's something CDs have going for them that makes them a nice investment in some cases. Can you guess what it is? It's pretty much guaranteed... it may be less... but it's guaranteed.
Student loans from the government are the same thing only it's the government doing the investing. It's only below market rates that they demand because there is no risk about being paid back. They are giving you money that you will pay back... even if you can't pay anything else you will pay these loans back. Banks have to charge more because there is risk involved for them. For the government, giving student loans is a GOOD investment just about every single time, because no matter what you are on the hook if you take the loan. A guaranteed investment almost always pays a lower return... that's just how the world works.
Plus like I said there are stage colleges and even universities like the University of California.
And tuition just keeps going up. I wonder why. It's not 10% more expensive to educate the same number of people every year is it? No, it's partly so people will take bigger loans... because THEY (both government and schools) know that idiots like me (I cannot fully separate myself from my past stupidity) will see it as a requirement and will do whatever I have to do to make it happen.
I think it is fairly obvious that professions which used to be learned on the job have been switching to college based for a long time. One example is programming and software development in general but there are certainly a whole lot more of them. At one time dentists did not require any special certification and in fact many hairdressers were dentists. This started changing in the XIXth century. In the case of dentistry in many places in the world you cannot do the job unless you have a degree. In the case of software development not having a degree will preclude you from being even considered as an employee in many places.
I think it's fairly obvious that medicine or dentistry is completely different than hairdressing. There might even still be hairdressers that are also dentists or hygienists, but really, who cares? Somewhere along the way we learned that there's enough to know about the medical field that it makes sense to require people to actually be SPECIFICALLY EDUCATED before they can practice medicine.
Electricians don't have to go to trade school. If you know an electrician (there are plenty) that will take you on then you can become their apprentice and work with them. I talk to electricians a few times a year that all wish they could find good help, but nobody wants to "work" anymore. The mere suggestion that you can't do on the job training for professional careers any more is crazy because no amount of education will make you a master electrician (a designation required to get many electrician jobs). It's work experience that does it... that's right... on the job training. Same goes for plumbers, locksmiths, machinists, and more.
I worked in a tire factory and and a medical device manufacturing factory. At the tire place no one needed a degree. It was all on the job training... Watch out for that big ass tire coming down the aisle on a hook and make sure you do what's needed to it without getting yourself killed. I didn't need a degree to do that. It paid pretty good too.
At the medical manufacturing place it was extremely low tolerance medical tools (think 'screws for putting your pelvis back together after you're in a motorcycle crash' and you'll have an idea of the types of things made there). Much of the work was st
You do realize didn't answer the question, right? But, then again you're not the one the question was directed to so I suppose that's reasonable.
In reading your response you imply that loans create some kind of "sponsorship" or something. I don't think that's right at all. Government loans should actually be looked at as an additional tax of whatever the interest rate is on the loan - not a sponsoring of your educational desires. For example, if some unsuspecting young person borrows 10,000 USD to go to a state school one semester what they don't see is that statistically they'll get to pay between $200 and $400 bucks a year (interest) for next 10 - 20 years for the privilege. That interest is a cost the student is paying and is pure, guaranteed profit for the government since student loans can't be bankrupted. Those same loans also make the borrower beholden to the government during their entire college experience because they have to be renewed each year (if not each semester).
I'm still waiting to hear how master/apprentice programs have been offloaded as well as on-the-job training. I just haven't seen that to be the case and I'd really like to hear the Uberbah's rationalization behind that statement so I can understand it.
I'm interested in hearing more about this so I can understand it. How is anything you mentioned offloaded to the tax payer via "higher education"? My question is serious... I'd like to understand the thinking behind the theory.
I do understand the physical key argument. When it comes to a physical key and there is proof that you did in fact have control of the key then an explanation will probably be in order for why your can't provide it. Heck, if they're filming the safe 24/7 and see the parolee open it up then maybe that would be grounds for forcing them to provide a combination. They've already proved access so now it's just down to what's in it - and if the have a warrant then they get to know.
In that case the contents are the the primary goal and serve as evidence of wrong doing because they already know you have access to them.
My example, as you saw, the police didn't not know that the parolee had access. It was a case where merely being ABLE to open the safe is what constituted breaking the law and proving that he could do so would be testifying against themself. What was in the safe was not necessarily proof of crime, but being able to open the safe was... crazy huh?... that's our world.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Die Hard (40 stories up) lines. McClain sneaks up on one of terrorists, puts a gun to the guy's head, and tells him to "drop it... it's th e police".
Terrorist: You won't hurt me.
McClain: Oh yeah? Why's that?
Terrorist: Because you're a policeman. There are rules for policeman.
McClain: (Snidely) Yeah. That's what my captain keeps telling me. (Whack)
There are rules. But if they're not enforceable, then they're only there to make you feel good. And people being asked to do the job won't give a damn about the rules when it comes right down to it because at most it will result in some time off (paid or unpaid).
It's actually a bit more complicated than that. You still have to answer a question if the answer alone is not itself incriminating.
No, you don't have to say anything. EVER. You don't have to talk to them at all before you are arrested because they're just some other person. Yes they're police officers, but unless you've been detained you don't have to say anything. Once you've been detained then you still don't have to say anything. If you like you can confirm that you've been detained and then ask to contact your lawyer or to be released / arrested. Then once you've been arrested you have the right to remain silent. At no point do you ever really have to say anything. It will escalate or deescalate itself on it's own. You might exchange niceties and be polite to move things along, but even that is a risk and you don't have to do it.
But a question like "what is the combination to your safe" would not necessarily be self-incrimination, because the combination itself doesn't incriminate you, and the court already knows you know, even if inside the safe are documents that show you committed a crime.
If you've been arrested (and even before so) then anything you say can and will be used against you. That means it's testimony and the fifth amendment says that you don't have to say anything at all if it means you're providing testimony against yourself. You do not have to testify in your own defense period - unless you waive that right. And then you're bound to answer all questions. You either testify or you don't... you don't pick and choose the questions you will answer...
Consider the way this is actually being applied. Think about it in the context of a parolee who is not allowed to possess a firearm. If the police SUSPECT or even KNOW there is a firearm in the safe then that's all fine and dandy, but asking the parolee to hand over the combination would essentially be asking them to show that they have control (ie. possession) over what is in said safe. So, in essence, asking them to tell you what may (or may not) be in their head would be asking them to incriminate themselves via their testimony.
By not providing a combination the parolee can show (or argue later) that they are NOT in control of the safe's contents (maybe their roommate controls the key, maybe the safe was left in the house when they bought it, maybe they just rent out the space and don't maintain access themselves) or that they don't know the combination. In those cases the prosecution would have a hard time proving that the person did have "possession" of the contents of the safe.
If the person provides the combination then they'll be presumed to have had access and likely knowledge of what was in it.
Let's try another example. Let's say you know the combination. Your spouse is a drug dealer and you do not know it, but you know the safe combination because it's the same as your shared ATM card or some other crap like that. You, with all good intentions, tell the government the combination and earn yourself a trip to jail - Just for knowing and telling the police the combination!
Let the police do their job and let your lawyers to their job. When you start doing the police's job for them you make it harder on your lawyer... even when you're innocent - perhaps moreso.
It's worse than that. Let's say you admit to banging his wife to keep out of the original legal trouble. But you were too drunk the previous night (and possibly still the next day when answering his questions) to remember clearly. It was actually his mom, not his wife... or maybe it was his sister and his wife.... oh well. Either way, now you've lied to a cop (on accident) - so you've NOW committed a crime just by explaining why you hadn't committed the other crime. Better to just STFU.
We don't live in a popular democracy... so your last question is moot. And the very observation that "fact-based reasoning" appears to be "too much of a stretch" should cause you to take comfort that we don't live in said popular democracy.
But I do agree that it would be nice if the actual facts were considered in this and other issues.
I don't think denzacar was talking about it linearly. Especially since he was talking about it being spread out. And also because the discussion is about air... no one talks about air using linear measurements.
The way I understood it was that there was all this volume of atmosphere that the these items would be going up against. That's why the more spread out it is the better. The more you spread it out the more volume of atmosphere there is to absorb the impact.
As far as the 1000s comment I would say that if you've got a barrier at least 11km deep (containing 75% of the atmosphere as you say) and you can spread out the impact over 100km of surface area then there's your 1000km of atmosphere that is absorbing the impact.... as opposed to it hitting in one much smaller area that puts up far less of a hindering force.
That's just my understanding of what denzacar said... but my interpretation may not necessarily be correct and I'm not intending to put words in their mouth.
So at some point that guy in the mall's brain will filter out the noise and see that damn boat... and then he'll be declared a genius. Rats.
Well, presumably, when he filed for that patent he knew what he was patenting. He and his lawyers came up with the a set of "claims" that are the actual meat of the IP. And if some actor later comes and inserts a product into the market that could not have been created without stepping on one or more of the claims in the patent then he knows one of two things:
(1) he has a valid complaint that the person is stepping on his IP
or
(2) whoever wrote the claims in his patent did so in such that there was a work around that these other actors are utilizing
[Random note: The possibility of (2) is why you should hire an actual patent attorney to write your patent rather than trying to do it yourself. I have experience with this and the value of a decent attorney, if you can afford them, is not to be minimized.]
In any case, that's what a patent lawsuit is about. I say "you can't do that without violating my patent". Now you must prove that you found a way to do it without violating my patent or you must prove that the patent should never have been granted. If you can't do either one of those then you pay for using my IP.
Numerous voters treat the current president as a hero who only poops sunshine and rainbows and is constantly fighting the good fight. And numerous voters treat the previous one as such also. It doesn't make either one of those an "American hero" - not even close.
If it's an adult and there is no indication of a crime AGAINST the missing person, then the correct solution is a Private Investigator. Not the police. The police should be focusing their efforts on stopping actual crimes and responding to actual events... not highly improbable events with no evidence to back up that the event even occurred.
Also, if the issue is debt / other obligations then that's yet another case that you should use a Private Investigator to find them. The fact that someone owes YOU money doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE should pay for the search. There's a pretty good chance that in most cases more resources will be spent to find the person that what than they even owed to start with - especially if it's the police doing the searching.
If the cops can find "missing person" because they're just hiding out (rather than foul play) then so can a private investigator. If the PI cant, then its unlikely the police officer will.
Now, if they're skipping bond or breaking some other existing judgement that is a criminal offense (rather than a civil one) then there's at least a case of asking the police to get involved. They'd be investigating and stopping an actual criminal offense.
Other than that... if you wanna know where a missing adult is then spend your own dime to find 'em. It'll be done more efficiently and more thoroughly with the added benefit of letting the cops worry about what they're actually supposed to be doing.
All of this assumes there's not circumstances that indicate foul play. If there are, then the search should be underway. Also, while one person being missing is relatively unlikely it becomes much more unlikely to be "no big deal" when several people have been reported missing (becoming even more unlikely with each additional one). Obviously that should be looked into as a likely criminal event simply because of how unlikely the events are as a collection.
A: Of course anything even remotely resembling a union is "communist"...
Maybe. But it doesn't really matter.
B: ..., so we can rule that option right out.
Wrong. Why? Because what described in your first and second paragraphs doesn't resemble the unions of which you speak of in the last. (B) has nothing to do with (A). Therefore, you SHOULD be happy that what you described is not only possible, but quite preferable for many professions. For some reason I doubt you will be happy though.
And just so you know, electricians already do this. And plumbers. You know, those middle class, hard working professionals. Even independent contractors go through the same process for these professions. The practice isn't gone. Again, you should be happy with me pointing this out, but I doubt you will be.
Tired of people mind controlling you via advertisements? Well, just click right here and buy our magic mind control blocker for just $14.95.
I'm only commenting to bring your comment to light for those that browse with anonymous cowards hidden. I don't know if you're "right" because this isn't my area of expertise, but I will say the comment is very informative, if it is indeed accurate.
Yes, but if you read the article, or hell, even the summary, then you'd know it was about primes.
Some AC felt the need to make a lame '42' reference. Then, against all odds, it somehow managed to get back around to being on topic when someone else gave it a -1, thus rendering it a nicely prime 41. Then you came along and decided to be an ass. Well done.
But wait! With 41 you don't just get an "on topic" prime number. You'll also find that 41 is actually a twin in the twin prime pair of (41, 43)! That's right, it is completely on topic... so.... nah nah nahnah nah.
Now, as far as I can tell I've managed to make two relevant posts on the topic out of a seemingly impossible "42 duh duh" comment. On the other hand, you've managed only to be an asshole and contribute nothing other than bad karma. As far as you comment about making more money goes, I'm confused, who knows, maybe I got whooshed or missed a meme or something. Or maybe I've just been trolled. But, maybe you'd make more if you weren't such an asshole and instead just let people have a good time without trying to piss on 'em. Especially when it doesn't even matter.
Which is... back on topic... prime!
I suppose I should have realized that by Fox News you meant the channel... since MSNBC is also a channel (even though they have MSNBC news also).
In any case, to argue that somehow Rachel Maddow is somehow a beacon of factual speaking is craziness. Even compared to the whatever Fox News talking head you want to use. And the Daily show is GREAT. The problem is he can get away with lying whenever he wants because it's in humor and if someone doesn't get it they can just be called to dense to get the joke. Everybody laughs (because he's funny), but he can be as loose as he wants with the facts because its humor based.
And you don't think the network stations have a point of view? They're pro-establishment, which is why something like Occupy Wall Street can go on for weeks without media coverage, while a random, small pro-Corporate Tea Party rally gets instant coverage.
I think everybody has a slant. I never said anyone didn't. All I asked what why they had to both report the facts and their opinion. Let them do whichever, but once they start reporting their opinion then we should expect their "facts" to have a certain amount of bias to them. That's all I meant.
As far as the coverage of the Tea Party and Occupy was concerned... I assume you're joking... or high (nothing wrong with that). If you think either "movement" didn't get covered or got covered then your view is completely colored by your politics. Nothing wrong with that, but I guarantee that people who lean a different way see the news coverage exactly opposite to the way you do. In their view Occupy was made out to be some wonderful grassroots campaign made up of people with higher than average intelligence and and optimistic view on life who just want a "fair shake" (someone elses money). But the tea party rallies were made of racist bigots who wanted nothing more than to tear the country apart and starve the children. It was all horse shit. Neither group was as bad or as good as anyone said, but political view points change that... so they should be left out of the news.
Ha ha. At least they enumerated the "his or her" part. We would have never figured that one out if not for them explicitily allowing for either! What what if it's a "both" or a "neither"... does the fact that they explicitly enumerated it mean that those other classes have been left out of being covered?
[all a joke... and yet...]
I wish I had mod points right now. I think this may be the best / most useful comment I've read in quite a while. Not political, not attacking, not pandering. Just insightful and informative. Thank you.
I don't have cable, nor do I want it for anything other than sports (so i get to opt out of the 'slashdork' channels you mentioned). Honestly, I've thought a couple of times about getting cable again - for exactly the reasons you spelled out. I thought, man, I could get basic cable and then I'd get ESPN and TNT and could watch so many more games, especially playoff games. That would be great and for just $40 or so!
But then my fucking BRAIN kicks in and my memory takes over and the truth starts to show up again. Cable doesn't come with DVR in my neck of the woods and since I work hours that aren't always standard (like many people) I would need something that could allow me to watch my SHOWS on my timeline. Plus, pretty much everyone likes to be able to just pause stuff and come back to it later. Okay $10 per month for DVR.
Just $50 bucks.
WTF? That's not the HD cable and DVR teir. Fine... another 15 bucks a month.
Just $65 bucks now to have something that actually resembles my netflix / hulu setup that I get for $15.
So now I'm home from work and I'm ready to just shut my brain off for a while (before I get started doing even more work) so I want to watch one of my shows I've recorded with my handy dandy DVR. But guess what, the wife just got the kids to bed and wants to watch her shows while she folds laundry. I personally hate effing "Pickers" or "Animal Cops" so I guess I'll just leave the TV to her and try to tune it out. Sadly, no sports.
But since I only came back to cable for sports then giving up the TV to animal planet defeats the whole purpose, right!? I Guess we'll just have to add another box to the system. After all, why should I get to watch basketball and her miss her shows? So, here's another $10-$15 box depending on if it also has DVR. Of course, Grandma who lives with us because she can't live on her own will also want to be able to decide what she wants to watch (this is the same as the kids in your example) so she gets her own box at another expense.
So now $80-$90.
But I still don't have the latest and greatest movies. Maybe I should add some movie tiers? Well, shit, now we're right back where we started at over $100 for cable and we haven't even gotten to taxes, fees, etc.
Many people who have jobs and lives often can't make use of a "constant stream of everything"... sorry to burst your bubble on your little rant there... but just because someone chooses to operate in the market in a way different than you doesn't necessarily make them idiots. It might actually mean that you're the idiot and that you have no idea what you're talking about. Or it could just mean you're different and have different needs. You might not be willing to pay a premium for on demand, but someone else will be willing to do so because it fits their lifestyle. Companies that can respect that will find new opportunities. People that can't respect that (when it is not a moral issue) can safely be ignored.
The MSNBC talking heads at least stick to facts when presenting their point of view
Wow. Just Wow. Why do they even present both? They should keep their point of view out of it.
See my response to PPH... (you probably both posted that at the same time)
Fair enough. I concede your point and wish to change my response to reflect it. It still doesn't change what I was saying... metal detectors detect something alright, and "conductive materials" is not a sufficiently descriptive answer for what they detect (much like how "water" in it's pure form does not effectively conduct electricity) .