Commercial driver is actually the eighth most dangerous job in America. In addition, a very large portion of on-the-job deaths in other professions are a result of motor vehicle accidents.
Bankers definitely require licenses, at least those who deal with client money in any significant way (look up FINRA, for example).
For police officers, you have to be vetted and hired by a government agency (which is essentially getting a license) and typically take a an exam, you can't just declare yourself a police officer.
"If the bar was effective at keeping bad lawyers out, then we wouldn't have bad lawyers (ha)"
So, because the bar isn't perfect at keeping bad lawyers out, it's worthless? That's like saying that since seatbelts won't save you in all accidents, it's not worth wearing them.
"and if we believe in a free market (which, the last time I checked, lawyers charge money), then the market should be able to sort it out on its own"
We can believe in a free market but also believe in a regulated market, particularly for things where it's typically difficult for an ordinary consumer to judge value (hiring an attorney isn't like buying an apple), and where the implications of a bad "product" can be very very serious.
Regulatory capture is a real issue, and there are lots of areas where it's a major problem (Institute for Justice has done a lot of work on this), i.e. interior decorators, to take one example, but lawyers (like doctors) are something where a state licensing process does make a lot of sense.*
*It's worth noting that, even in those professions, I disagree in some cases with the degree of regulation involved, i.e. doctors limiting what nurses and physician's assistants can do, or lawyers trying to prevent "document preparers" from handling very typical, standardized situations. If you have a house, life insurance, and $50k in the bank, your spouse is dead, your two kids are grown, and you want to leave everything to those two kids equally, you don't need a lawyer to do your will.
So is teaching. So is banking. So is policing. So is being President.
And we require licenses for all of these, with the exception of the last.
Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others
How does it do that? And how does it do that in ways that the law does not?
Upfront, through the bar exam, it shows that the candidate has at least a decent grasp of the law. On an ongoing basis, it provides a review process for activity that might not be illegal per se, but poorly serves the client.
First off, a majority of states DO mandate membership in the state bar association (32 out of 50). Secondly, even in the states that don't, you can't just hang out your shingle and practice law - you need to be admitted to the bar by passing the state bar exam and being admitted to practice law in that state.
Law is a profession where an incompetent or corrupt practitioner can cause customers tremendous (and not readily correctable) harm. Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others, is by no means unreasonable. We do require licenses for far too many things in this country, but this isn't one of them - if your unlicensed DC tour guide screws up, you end up getting bad info on when the Library of Congress was built, but if your lawyer screws up, you can end up losing your home, or going to jail, etc.
You don't sign or put in a pin code. Just swipe, and you're on your way. As for cheaper, I get at least 2% cash back on all my credit card purchases, 5-7% in some cases.
Certainly an option, but would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop money laundering, and hence effectively increase the profitability of a lot of illegal activity.
Cab payment patterns pretty much match overall payment patterns. Americans use credit cards for a much larger portion of transactions than Europeans. I never pay with cash when I can pay with a card, it's simpler, faster, and cheaper to use a card.
In Germany I doubt you find a cab that accepts a credit card.
Well, unless you consider Munich, Frankfurt, and Berlin to not be part of Germany, your doubt is very misplaced. I've used a credit card in taxis in all three cities. Not every cab takes them (although I can't remember ever having to go past the second taxi in the rank to get one, so I'd say at least 50%), and there's usually a fee (a Euro or two), but it's not at all unusual.
It's perfectly legal to make a $10k cash deposit into or withdrawal from your bank (assuming that the underlying use/source of the cash is legal, of course). It is, however, definitely ILLEGAL to make a $9999 deposit for the purpose of staying below that $10k limit. It's called structuring, and can get you into a lot of trouble.
As an example, you sell a car for $13,000, and get paid in cash. If you go and deposit that $13k in cash in the bank, you're entirely kosher. It'll generate a currency transaction report, but they're not at all uncommon.
If, however, you deposit $9k, and then $4k, to stay below that $10k ceiling, you've just committed a federal crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Penny pinching? How is this at all a cost issue? It's not like US carriers have an extra person on board because of this rule. It just means that there a slightly fewer person-hours available to serve passengers drinks/food.
as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.
While Finland did much better than expected during the Winter War in 1939-40 (Finnish forces were hugely outnumbered), it clearly lost, surrendering more to the USSR than the USSR had demanded at the outset.
The second conflict, where Finland was allied with Germany (enemy of my enemy is my friend) was closer to a draw.
They couldn't have bailed out the banks, even if they had wanted to. The losses per capita were something like TWO THOUSAND times the losses of the US banks.
Slashdot Mirror
It's right there on the front page of amazon.co.uk, FireTV Stick the Most Powerful Streaming Media Stick" 35 pounds.
Try this link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/pro...
I'd also settle for say £80 to cover the cost of an Amazon FireTV stick.
You'd want 80 quid for something Amazon will sell you today for 35?
Commercial driver is actually the eighth most dangerous job in America. In addition, a very large portion of on-the-job deaths in other professions are a result of motor vehicle accidents.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Car companies are incredibly cheap so any extra complexity adds to the unreliability faster than the convenience.
Which explains why today's wildly more complex cars are also wildly more reliable than the much simpler cars of yesteryear.
Oh, wait, it doesn't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03...
...is now the SECOND-craziest SOB ever to fly one of those things.
"There's no license to be a teacher, or a banker, or a police officer."
Teacher licensing is required in every state that I know of. https://www.teach.org/teaching...
Bankers definitely require licenses, at least those who deal with client money in any significant way (look up FINRA, for example).
For police officers, you have to be vetted and hired by a government agency (which is essentially getting a license) and typically take a an exam, you can't just declare yourself a police officer.
"If the bar was effective at keeping bad lawyers out, then we wouldn't have bad lawyers (ha)"
So, because the bar isn't perfect at keeping bad lawyers out, it's worthless? That's like saying that since seatbelts won't save you in all accidents, it's not worth wearing them.
"and if we believe in a free market (which, the last time I checked, lawyers charge money), then the market should be able to sort it out on its own"
We can believe in a free market but also believe in a regulated market, particularly for things where it's typically difficult for an ordinary consumer to judge value (hiring an attorney isn't like buying an apple), and where the implications of a bad "product" can be very very serious.
Regulatory capture is a real issue, and there are lots of areas where it's a major problem (Institute for Justice has done a lot of work on this), i.e. interior decorators, to take one example, but lawyers (like doctors) are something where a state licensing process does make a lot of sense.*
*It's worth noting that, even in those professions, I disagree in some cases with the degree of regulation involved, i.e. doctors limiting what nurses and physician's assistants can do, or lawyers trying to prevent "document preparers" from handling very typical, standardized situations. If you have a house, life insurance, and $50k in the bank, your spouse is dead, your two kids are grown, and you want to leave everything to those two kids equally, you don't need a lawyer to do your will.
So is teaching. So is banking. So is policing. So is being President.
And we require licenses for all of these, with the exception of the last.
Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others
How does it do that? And how does it do that in ways that the law does not?
Upfront, through the bar exam, it shows that the candidate has at least a decent grasp of the law. On an ongoing basis, it provides a review process for activity that might not be illegal per se, but poorly serves the client.
First off, a majority of states DO mandate membership in the state bar association (32 out of 50). Secondly, even in the states that don't, you can't just hang out your shingle and practice law - you need to be admitted to the bar by passing the state bar exam and being admitted to practice law in that state.
Law is a profession where an incompetent or corrupt practitioner can cause customers tremendous (and not readily correctable) harm. Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others, is by no means unreasonable. We do require licenses for far too many things in this country, but this isn't one of them - if your unlicensed DC tour guide screws up, you end up getting bad info on when the Library of Congress was built, but if your lawyer screws up, you can end up losing your home, or going to jail, etc.
Possibly, although I did search for 18 20 Helene Hellmark Knutsson (the person who holds the office) and 7 10 Helene Hellmark Knutsson.
So, that's why I asked, politely. Not an unreasonable request.
Do you have a citation for those quotes? I can't find them referenced anywhere...
You know, I hadn't noticed the title was a palindrome. Thanks!
You don't sign or put in a pin code. Just swipe, and you're on your way. As for cheaper, I get at least 2% cash back on all my credit card purchases, 5-7% in some cases.
Certainly an option, but would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop money laundering, and hence effectively increase the profitability of a lot of illegal activity.
Cab payment patterns pretty much match overall payment patterns. Americans use credit cards for a much larger portion of transactions than Europeans. I never pay with cash when I can pay with a card, it's simpler, faster, and cheaper to use a card.
In Germany I doubt you find a cab that accepts a credit card.
Well, unless you consider Munich, Frankfurt, and Berlin to not be part of Germany, your doubt is very misplaced. I've used a credit card in taxis in all three cities. Not every cab takes them (although I can't remember ever having to go past the second taxi in the rank to get one, so I'd say at least 50%), and there's usually a fee (a Euro or two), but it's not at all unusual.
How would you have suggested they "fix" the algorithm?
It's perfectly legal to make a $10k cash deposit into or withdrawal from your bank (assuming that the underlying use/source of the cash is legal, of course). It is, however, definitely ILLEGAL to make a $9999 deposit for the purpose of staying below that $10k limit. It's called structuring, and can get you into a lot of trouble.
As an example, you sell a car for $13,000, and get paid in cash. If you go and deposit that $13k in cash in the bank, you're entirely kosher. It'll generate a currency transaction report, but they're not at all uncommon.
If, however, you deposit $9k, and then $4k, to stay below that $10k ceiling, you've just committed a federal crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or, you could just pay the sixty bucks.
PS It's steganography. Stenography is for taking dictation.
Yes, he did. He admitted that he did. It wasn't in the take they used, but he admits he used it.
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
Penny pinching? How is this at all a cost issue? It's not like US carriers have an extra person on board because of this rule. It just means that there a slightly fewer person-hours available to serve passengers drinks/food.
On mobile? Data caps are nearly ubiquitious.
as well as fighting USSR off twice during 1939-1944 period.
While Finland did much better than expected during the Winter War in 1939-40 (Finnish forces were hugely outnumbered), it clearly lost, surrendering more to the USSR than the USSR had demanded at the outset.
The second conflict, where Finland was allied with Germany (enemy of my enemy is my friend) was closer to a draw.
Making those Russian observers ride in a Saab 340 has got to be some sort of Geneva Convention violation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
They couldn't have bailed out the banks, even if they had wanted to. The losses per capita were something like TWO THOUSAND times the losses of the US banks.