The driving test at the DMV is as non-mandatory as it comes. You can walk away at any time, even in the middle of the test. Or at the end, before you hand in your results. Or while you're standing in line for four hours.
Once you're in line for the DUI checkpoint, you have very limited outs.
He doesn't need to be exonerated, he hasn't been accused of anything, just suspected. Further investigation should not result in evidence of cheating, if in fact he has not cheated.
That's usually only true if you're a raw grad with no contacts. If you REALLY want to go to grad school, but didn't have the grades, go get a job near/at a university, and volunteer part time for the lab you want to go to grad school in. You'll be accepted the next year, assuming you've proven yourself interesting.
Since most business owners who do most of the hiring are small to medium business owners
According to the current administration and the party in charge of both houses of congress, people making over $250k are the rich ones who aren't paying enough taxes.
tax... the ultra-rich more
The top 10% of earners in the country already pay 70% of all of the income taxes. The top 1% are paying more than half of that.
And government food stamp programs, for example, were more effective 50 years ago.
Being on food stamps is your idea of things being better?
Better than not being able to afford food, and not getting enough out of the food stamp program to help with that? Yes.
The top 10% should pay 90% of all taxes for fairness. At 70% they are getting an overly generous deal.
Since most business owners who do most of the hiring are small to medium business owners, you could actually tax them less by taxing the large businesses and the ultra-rich more.
And government food stamp programs, for example, were more effective 50 years ago.
The left can fathom it just fine. The left just wants to redistribute the extreme inequities. And frankly, evidence suggests that the bulk of the people were better off (social injustices aside for a moment) when marginal tax rates were much higher. Now, if you can make a convincing argument that the marginal tax rates and the social injustices are connected, that would be interesting, but otherwise I think the evidence is pretty solidly on the side of things being better for the majority when marginal tax rates are high.
I've always wondered why liberals didn't just turn around and ask why privately run death panels for profit were better than democratically elected death panels.
That's bizarrely backwards. Liberals are almost universally anti-cop, and very strongly anti-corruption. They favor, strongly, things like laws to allow videotaping cop misbehavior. They were incensed into the streets when cops killed an unarmed man in Oakland. Republicans tend to hold the pro-police position. Go look at which candidates tend to get cop money.
Mod parent up, this is actually the core problem. There is absolutely no hope of educating the anti-net-neutrality side. They aren't in opposition for a lack of education.
Why would they care if you abstain unless it impacts them in some way. They don't care about non-voters, except to the extent it risks their elections. They'd be happy if 99% didn't vote at all, as long as the 1% voted the way they wanted.
I'd have to say that the atheistic role models per unit scientist is much higher than per unit religious. The problem is the shortage of atheists, not the rate of role model production.
The real explanation is likely to be electromigration, which is a negligible influence on older, larger process technology. Newer technology is so close to atomic limits that it is vulnerable to a whole lot of new potential problems.
Slashdot Mirror
The driving test at the DMV is as non-mandatory as it comes. You can walk away at any time, even in the middle of the test. Or at the end, before you hand in your results. Or while you're standing in line for four hours.
Once you're in line for the DUI checkpoint, you have very limited outs.
By your own estimate, drunk driving is only about ten times worse than terrorism, not 100.
Accepting the reality of risk? Prosecuting those who actually cause a problem rather than those who might?
Posted by timothy on Fri Dec 31
Says it all for the quality of slashdot editing.
And then he'd sue them, and make lots of money since they had no evidence of him cheating.
He doesn't need to be exonerated, he hasn't been accused of anything, just suspected. Further investigation should not result in evidence of cheating, if in fact he has not cheated.
I didn't see where it said he would be accused of cheating. I thought it said he'd be suspected of cheating. Those are not at all the same thing.
That's usually only true if you're a raw grad with no contacts. If you REALLY want to go to grad school, but didn't have the grades, go get a job near/at a university, and volunteer part time for the lab you want to go to grad school in. You'll be accepted the next year, assuming you've proven yourself interesting.
Yet according to Caveon Test Security, I'd be a cheater.
According to the article, according to Caveon Test Security, you might be a cheater.
So you'd be investigated. And you'd pass investigation, because you didn't cheat.
Since most business owners who do most of the hiring are small to medium business owners
According to the current administration and the party in charge of both houses of congress, people making over $250k are the rich ones who aren't paying enough taxes.
tax ... the ultra-rich more
The top 10% of earners in the country already pay 70% of all of the income taxes. The top 1% are paying more than half of that.
And government food stamp programs, for example, were more effective 50 years ago.
Being on food stamps is your idea of things being better?
Better than not being able to afford food, and not getting enough out of the food stamp program to help with that? Yes.
The top 10% should pay 90% of all taxes for fairness. At 70% they are getting an overly generous deal.
It doesn't sound like you read the parent to whom I replied.
Since most business owners who do most of the hiring are small to medium business owners, you could actually tax them less by taxing the large businesses and the ultra-rich more.
And government food stamp programs, for example, were more effective 50 years ago.
Unfortunately, thanks to your pro-oligopoly/monopoly business stance, your own party has made it impossible to found that competing isp.
The left can fathom it just fine. The left just wants to redistribute the extreme inequities. And frankly, evidence suggests that the bulk of the people were better off (social injustices aside for a moment) when marginal tax rates were much higher. Now, if you can make a convincing argument that the marginal tax rates and the social injustices are connected, that would be interesting, but otherwise I think the evidence is pretty solidly on the side of things being better for the majority when marginal tax rates are high.
I've always wondered why liberals didn't just turn around and ask why privately run death panels for profit were better than democratically elected death panels.
And what exactly is the problem with people marrying sheep or dogs anyway?
Politics, like everything social, is a way for one guy's genes to win out over another's. It's definitely not a waste of time for the winner.
That's bizarrely backwards. Liberals are almost universally anti-cop, and very strongly anti-corruption. They favor, strongly, things like laws to allow videotaping cop misbehavior. They were incensed into the streets when cops killed an unarmed man in Oakland. Republicans tend to hold the pro-police position. Go look at which candidates tend to get cop money.
Mod parent up, this is actually the core problem. There is absolutely no hope of educating the anti-net-neutrality side. They aren't in opposition for a lack of education.
Why would they care if you abstain unless it impacts them in some way. They don't care about non-voters, except to the extent it risks their elections. They'd be happy if 99% didn't vote at all, as long as the 1% voted the way they wanted.
What's wrong with splitting the billing between the two parties involved in an exchange? Or are you arguing they make too much profit?
I'd have to say that the atheistic role models per unit scientist is much higher than per unit religious. The problem is the shortage of atheists, not the rate of role model production.
Obviously ... is the GPL written to be compatible with them?
What binds the Russians to the GPL at all, a construct based on US copyright law?
The real explanation is likely to be electromigration, which is a negligible influence on older, larger process technology. Newer technology is so close to atomic limits that it is vulnerable to a whole lot of new potential problems.