Actually, one of the functions of our court system is to determine whether laws are constitutionally VALID or not.
A frightening trend we have seen in this country is that it's becoming harder and harder for the average person to avoid breaking the law and still maintain a free, convenient life.
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of a God.
The best part about science is that it has never seriously sought to disprove the existence of a god. Some of the greatest scientists of our era actually personally believe or believed that a higher power must exist.
No, you shouldn't force them. You should, however, be willing to pay them more (i.e., overtime) for the time beyond the 40-hour week (or whatever your contracts say is a full week) or any time they continue to work while on vacations. You should also not be holding these "over-dedicated employees" as the new standard.
Of course, being an employer, you have already decided the "right" answer to your question and the asking of it was merely a red herring.
Um, you just used an anecdote where you specifically avoided using a check to try to argue that using checks is still a normal way of paying for stuff.
Yes, I did. Imagine that. I wasn't going out of my way to avoid using a check, but faced with the simple fact that I didn't have one on me. Because I didn't go home to get one, I paid more money. Unless you're implying that trying to spend less money is "abnormal."
This isn't a question of whether I did wrong or right, but a simple statement of fact.
Actually, I have a prime example for you on why your statement is a broad, inaccurate, generalization: I recently purchased a computer from a small, one-man computer seller/repair shop. Like any business, he gets charged a percentage of all credit card transactions by his merchant. (I'm also aware of this because I worked for a small business and was privy to this sort of thing internally.) Because I didn't want to use a check (or cash), I paid an additional 2% over the cost of the invoice to cover his fees. You can argue that I could have taken my business elsewhere or a number of other things, but that's entirely irrelevant to this statement. The point is that using credit cards costs (additional) money, and sometimes that cost is passed on to the consumer.
Using checks is still a normal method of paying debts. Just because it's less convenient (for the payer) than other methods doesn't make that untrue.
As a Golden ear myself, I'd happily join the test, but my ISP steadfastly refuses to fit directional single-crystal OFC optic fibre between my home and the exchange, so any listening test that involves bits going over the internet is utterly pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Panda Eaters and Tasters Association
Actually, one of the functions of our court system is to determine whether laws are constitutionally VALID or not.
A frightening trend we have seen in this country is that it's becoming harder and harder for the average person to avoid breaking the law and still maintain a free, convenient life.
How often do you stop at green lights while there is traffic behind you?
Then you should either learn to obey traffic lights or not use that intersection. Weren't you listening to the other trolls in this thread?!
I'll just continue to use Safari and Chrome on my iPhone. I plan on swapping out to something with Android in a few years anyway.
You're actually demonstrating the exact attitude we don't want to deal with in the office.
What if part of the problem is your lack of employment makes you depressed and distant?
Then I would argue that she was a gold-digger that wasn't worth keeping. She obviously didn't care about the man himself.
I really hope Hollywood creates something called "Flikr," because that looks like a trademark litigation lawyer's wet dream.
Christians are fucking morons, there is no god. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc, throw them all in a pit of fire.
But the "pit of fire" is a product of Christian mythology. How can we throw them there if you want to disavow their beliefs as "fairy tails" [sic]?
I'd love to see your science that categorically disproves the existence of a God.
The best part about science is that it has never seriously sought to disprove the existence of a god. Some of the greatest scientists of our era actually personally believe or believed that a higher power must exist.
Please name the comedian who makes a living belittling atheists?
Pat Robinson, (the late) Jerry Fallwell, pretty much any active member of the Westboro Baptist Church....
You know, the whole thing about Jesus dying for the sins of the people was so that things like that no longer need to apply.
No, you shouldn't force them. You should, however, be willing to pay them more (i.e., overtime) for the time beyond the 40-hour week (or whatever your contracts say is a full week) or any time they continue to work while on vacations. You should also not be holding these "over-dedicated employees" as the new standard.
Of course, being an employer, you have already decided the "right" answer to your question and the asking of it was merely a red herring.
Then this would be a good law to have, correct?
It is. The problem is that companies aren't being told this in ways that matter to them.
Um, you just used an anecdote where you specifically avoided using a check to try to argue that using checks is still a normal way of paying for stuff.
Yes, I did. Imagine that. I wasn't going out of my way to avoid using a check, but faced with the simple fact that I didn't have one on me. Because I didn't go home to get one, I paid more money. Unless you're implying that trying to spend less money is "abnormal."
This isn't a question of whether I did wrong or right, but a simple statement of fact.
I can easily see the argument being made that an officer of the law personally delivering a court summons would constitute "legally protected proof."
I don't know how it works in your region, but in Pennsylvania, subpoenas and court summonses are still served by constables.
As and addendum, that's also the reason why some gas stations charge a lower price for gas on transactions made by cash.
Actually, I have a prime example for you on why your statement is a broad, inaccurate, generalization:
I recently purchased a computer from a small, one-man computer seller/repair shop. Like any business, he gets charged a percentage of all credit card transactions by his merchant. (I'm also aware of this because I worked for a small business and was privy to this sort of thing internally.) Because I didn't want to use a check (or cash), I paid an additional 2% over the cost of the invoice to cover his fees. You can argue that I could have taken my business elsewhere or a number of other things, but that's entirely irrelevant to this statement. The point is that using credit cards costs (additional) money, and sometimes that cost is passed on to the consumer.
Using checks is still a normal method of paying debts. Just because it's less convenient (for the payer) than other methods doesn't make that untrue.
I assure you that many "normal people" still pay things by cheques.
Do you mean constables?
Say, did they ever fix that the board user/pass combination is the same as your game user/pass combination?
Considering that the website, message board, and game all use the same ACCOUNT, this is kind of a pointless question to ask.
It's an HA test. Of course we're doing it double-blind. :P (ABC/HR, to be specific.)
As a Golden ear myself, I'd happily join the test, but my ISP steadfastly refuses to fit directional single-crystal OFC optic fibre between my home and the exchange, so any listening test that involves bits going over the internet is utterly pointless.
Mod up for humor, please.