Try buying something as simple and straightforward as vinegar and oil salad dressing, that doesn't have added sugar. It is hard not to overdose if you use processed foods in the US.
Fuck the veterans. Did they or did they not get paid? Because I'm pretty sure being stupid enough to get a job in the army is still getting a job. There is zero reason to give them anything but their last paycheck on the way out the door.
Part of the benefits package that they have contracted too be paid is additional education during and after service. A major point of the article is that it might have broader societal advantages if that educational benefit could be used on coder schools.
In '98, I took contract in San Francisco, continued to live in Austin. I bought a couple of round trip tickets for the first weekends I was coming home, and they were the last ones I paid for. I got nearly 18 months of free travel (except for my time in airports), because I was willing to be bumped at least once on pretty much any leg of any flight. The gate people thought I was great to work with. They could never pay for a hotel, but I had a laptop and they would let me run a power strip so that I could keep working. My family and boss knew that I was going to eventually get home or back at the office.
So how do I parse these "liberal guys" from CATO, published in Forbes, saying that oil and gas firms get special tax breaks?
"Another significant tax break allows companies to accelerate the deductions of the costs of labor and various other inputs associated with drilling oil or gas wells. Now, there's nothing wrong with deducting the cost of doing business from one's tax bill. In other industries these expenses would be capitalized and deducted over time as income is earned. But in the oil and gas sector, the tax code allows oil and gas firms to deduct 70% of these expenses in the very first year of a well's operation and the remainder over the next five years."
Or this guy over at The Volokh Conspiracy claiming that:
"The best example is the percentage depletion allowance which, as applied in some cases, enables oil companies greater depreciation than the value of the initial investment."
Because, I wouldn't want to look dumb and uneducated, thereby hurting my claim.
The service was made a little less decent when marketing REMFs sold the brass on the "warrior" terminology.
One of the highlights of my career was pulling a trick out of my geek toolbox to keep a combat unit mobile one sunny afternoon. When the Top commented "That is how you soldier," it meant more to me than any of the fruit salad ever pinned on my greens.
My understanding is that Apple makes some bonuses contingent on no leaks having occurred for a product rollout. Someone talks, no one involved with the project gets the bonus. If that happens in this case, he may need police protection.
Assuming that this guy is an otherwise valued employee, as a manager or co-worker, I would make the case to keep him: Fire him and the product release story will be about the guy who got fired. Keep him and he gets mentioned, but he will never lose anything of any value ever again.
He doesn't get a bonus, he does get every other shit detail until Scotland plays the U.S. in the World Cup finals (your teams may vary), and the standard for "met expectations" gets moved up a notch to "makes his manager and co-workers look insanely great every single moment of every single day."
Declining the encounter is telling the officer that you are not consenting or agreeing to participating in the contact with them voluntarily, and directly informing them of your intention to leave without further consensual interaction.
The reason to decline explicitly is to avoid implying consensual (voluntary) participation after they didn't clearly answer your question.
You may end up being detained or arrested (the second and third categories of interactions, along with consensual), but it forces an answer to the original question "Am I free to go?" And it establishes the latest moment that those events could have occurred.
The sequence of events can be very important. If you have "volunteered" something in consensual conversation, there was no need to inform you of your post-arrest Miranda rights.
Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature".
My background is more in rhetoric than science, and that there is what we rhetoricians like to call a straw man. You got the small and large all swapped around, then beat up on an argument that wasn't being made. The argument I have heard made, that concerns me, is that large changes in CO2 concentration result in small temperature changes that can have dramatic impacts.
Sovereign means permanent? By that definition, a successful invasion, resulting in assimilation or destruction could not have occurred against a sovereign nation.
Your assertion is bullshit, even with your redefinition. Wikipedia has an incomplete list, the most glaring absence is the 1962 Sino-Indian extravaganza during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
East Texas juries are more educated? Clearly you have never met any of my cousins from behind the Pine Curtain. I mean they are family and all... but education is not their strength.
The first attempt to apply Blackstone's commentaries to the First Amendment was Patterson v. Colorado in 1907, a decision made by Hughes. Near v. Minnesota, popularly though of as a defense of First Amendment liberties expanded on this application. But, Hughes, the jurist in Patterson v. Colorado, was convinced by Zachariah Chaffee (a constitutional scholar) that his application was mistaken, and that Madison specifically had avoided using the phrase "liberty of the press" to sidestep the common law legal doctrine described by Blackstone.
Liberty of the press stops prior restraint, but allows subsequent punishment. Near v. Minnesota opened the door for some acceptable cases of prior restraint. But what Madison and the boys were aiming for was something completely different.
I don't have the exact cite off the top of my head, but there is an excellent piece in the 1987 William and Mary Law Review by Jeffery Smith providing the appropriate footnotes and documentation.
No, the point is is that there is a fear that if the authorities can monitor your conversation with your attorney, then you will not be as forthcoming.
Yes, that is the point. This provides the infrastructure and the opportunity, they already tell you they are motivated.
In other words, if I were arrested tomorrow, if I didn't know whether or not I was being monitored, then I would be careful with what I was saying to my attorney. But as this standard states, the authorities must inform you beforehand. So, even today, I can still have the confidence that they are not listening in, until they tell me.
No, you can't. I have personally watched law enforcement officials from local county sheriffs to U.S. Marshalls cheat the system to "nail the bad guys" when they had plausible deniability. You will not know that they are listening unless they tell you. Because they don't doesn't mean that they aren't.
Look, the algorithm is simple. Once they tell you that you are being monitored, then don't say anything that will incriminate yourself.
Meaning that you cannot have a frank and honest conversation with your lawyer.
As far as I can tell, your argument against it is that it restricts the rights of the guilty to get away with something. I see no way in which an innocent man could be hurt by this type of monitoring.
Clearly, you have never experienced the joys of our criminal justice system firsthand, or read about the tragedies inflicted on innocents.
Assume I am innocent of everything, but have a funny last name, creating sufficient probable cause to be arrested. The cops listen in as I tell my attorney everything. I explain that as a young and misguided youth, I once gave money to another guy with funny sounding name for a subscription to the newsletter he was peddling. I read a few issues, decided the other guy with a funny sounding name was way too funny for me, and trashed every newsletter after that. The cops investigate, and sure I gave that guy money. They investigate further, that guy sold my contact information to FunnyNamedTerrorists'R'Us, who put me in their big database, and a funny named but incredibly competetent sysadmin made backups and stored them offsite. FNT'R'Us resells my info and so on, and I am suddenly on every marketing list of every funny named spammer ever born. People without funny names make a retaliatory raid on each of these places which have my contact information, including a cool, dry, earthquake proof vault in the mountains of the funny name homeland. In court the prosecutor, with much vigor and insinuation tells the jury "This guy with the funny name claims he hasn't had any contact with the Funny Named Terrorist Liberation Front, but they sure know who he is... look at how many of their front organizations have made contact with him, sending him secret coded messages by e-mail, snail-mail, and over 1000 phone calls in the middle of dinner last month alone!!!"
Worse yet, I was scared to mention this to my lawyer, because I knew the cops were monitoring us.
First, the detainee must be informed of it, so there is no potential for the type of abuse which would make all detainees afraid to speak to their attorney; everyone would know when they were subject to such monitoring.
They are putting the listening devices in, and being trusted to turn them on and off at the correct time. "No potential for abuse" is a bit optimistic. Hollywood didn't come up with the idea of "accidentally" letting the witness see the guy getting booked and other charades on their own.
Second, and even more importantly, this monitoring cannot be used as evidence against the detainee.
Have you ever tried to backwards engineer anything? It is a lot easier to do the detective work to find evidence if you know what you are looking for during the search. The monitoring itself can't be used as evidence, but it can be used for other things, including locating other evidence to be used against you in a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
The dose makes the poison.
Try buying something as simple and straightforward as vinegar and oil salad dressing, that doesn't have added sugar. It is hard not to overdose if you use processed foods in the US.
No, it's still worth saying.
Fuck the veterans. Did they or did they not get paid? Because I'm pretty sure being stupid enough to get a job in the army is still getting a job. There is zero reason to give them anything but their last paycheck on the way out the door.
Part of the benefits package that they have contracted too be paid is additional education during and after service. A major point of the article is that it might have broader societal advantages if that educational benefit could be used on coder schools.
It is how America West went bankrupt.
In '98, I took contract in San Francisco, continued to live in Austin. I bought a couple of round trip tickets for the first weekends I was coming home, and they were the last ones I paid for. I got nearly 18 months of free travel (except for my time in airports), because I was willing to be bumped at least once on pretty much any leg of any flight. The gate people thought I was great to work with. They could never pay for a hotel, but I had a laptop and they would let me run a power strip so that I could keep working. My family and boss knew that I was going to eventually get home or back at the office.
to explain the Fermi Paradox?
So how do I parse these "liberal guys" from CATO, published in Forbes, saying that oil and gas firms get special tax breaks?
Or this guy over at The Volokh Conspiracy claiming that:
Because, I wouldn't want to look dumb and uneducated, thereby hurting my claim.
The service was made a little less decent when marketing REMFs sold the brass on the "warrior" terminology.
One of the highlights of my career was pulling a trick out of my geek toolbox to keep a combat unit mobile one sunny afternoon. When the Top commented "That is how you soldier," it meant more to me than any of the fruit salad ever pinned on my greens.
My understanding is that Apple makes some bonuses contingent on no leaks having occurred for a product rollout. Someone talks, no one involved with the project gets the bonus. If that happens in this case, he may need police protection.
Assuming that this guy is an otherwise valued employee, as a manager or co-worker, I would make the case to keep him: Fire him and the product release story will be about the guy who got fired. Keep him and he gets mentioned, but he will never lose anything of any value ever again.
He doesn't get a bonus, he does get every other shit detail until Scotland plays the U.S. in the World Cup finals (your teams may vary), and the standard for "met expectations" gets moved up a notch to "makes his manager and co-workers look insanely great every single moment of every single day."
But, I don't run a multi-$Billion corporation.
At least, that was what worked in Alien Rescue http://alienrescue.edb.utexas.edu/, a problem based learning game.
Declining the encounter is telling the officer that you are not consenting or agreeing to participating in the contact with them voluntarily, and directly informing them of your intention to leave without further consensual interaction.
The reason to decline explicitly is to avoid implying consensual (voluntary) participation after they didn't clearly answer your question.
You may end up being detained or arrested (the second and third categories of interactions, along with consensual), but it forces an answer to the original question "Am I free to go?" And it establishes the latest moment that those events could have occurred.
The sequence of events can be very important. If you have "volunteered" something in consensual conversation, there was no need to inform you of your post-arrest Miranda rights.
"Am I free to go" can (often does) result in a practiced non-answer, where the answer should be "yes."
In which case "I decline the encounter" is the appropriate follow up.
Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature".
My background is more in rhetoric than science, and that there is what we rhetoricians like to call a straw man. You got the small and large all swapped around, then beat up on an argument that wasn't being made. The argument I have heard made, that concerns me, is that large changes in CO2 concentration result in small temperature changes that can have dramatic impacts.
To summarize,
Apparently neither of us is a lawyer.
Not quite open source, but publicly available for several years:
Tex's French Grammar
Trying to time your squeeze is part of the problem. It is the wrong approach and certainly not the one taught in the military or police forces.
Aim, breathe steady, keep aiming, exhale while aiming, gently squeeze the trigger. The exact moment of the loud bang should be a surprise.
At taxpayer expense with the military is the most common route.
Probably?
Don't understand?
I've been worshiping helicopters and the gods who fly them since I was three. For my devotion and study, I was made a god myself.
Dave
Sovereign means permanent? By that definition, a successful invasion, resulting in assimilation or destruction could not have occurred against a sovereign nation.
Your assertion is bullshit, even with your redefinition. Wikipedia has an incomplete list, the most glaring absence is the 1962 Sino-Indian extravaganza during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
East Texas juries are more educated? Clearly you have never met any of my cousins from behind the Pine Curtain. I mean they are family and all... but education is not their strength.
The University of Texas College of Liberal Arts ITS has been pursuing projects like this for a few years, with their French, Spanish and Texas Politics textbooks.
The first attempt to apply Blackstone's commentaries to the First Amendment was Patterson v. Colorado in 1907, a decision made by Hughes. Near v. Minnesota, popularly though of as a defense of First Amendment liberties expanded on this application. But, Hughes, the jurist in Patterson v. Colorado, was convinced by Zachariah Chaffee (a constitutional scholar) that his application was mistaken, and that Madison specifically had avoided using the phrase "liberty of the press" to sidestep the common law legal doctrine described by Blackstone.
Liberty of the press stops prior restraint, but allows subsequent punishment. Near v. Minnesota opened the door for some acceptable cases of prior restraint. But what Madison and the boys were aiming for was something completely different.
I don't have the exact cite off the top of my head, but there is an excellent piece in the 1987 William and Mary Law Review by Jeffery Smith providing the appropriate footnotes and documentation.
Dave
No, the point is is that there is a fear that if the authorities can monitor your conversation with your attorney, then you will not be as forthcoming.
Yes, that is the point. This provides the infrastructure and the opportunity, they already tell you they are motivated.
In other words, if I were arrested tomorrow, if I didn't know whether or not I was being monitored, then I would be careful with what I was saying to my attorney. But as this standard states, the authorities must inform you beforehand. So, even today, I can still have the confidence that they are not listening in, until they tell me.
No, you can't. I have personally watched law enforcement officials from local county sheriffs to U.S. Marshalls cheat the system to "nail the bad guys" when they had plausible deniability. You will not know that they are listening unless they tell you. Because they don't doesn't mean that they aren't.
Look, the algorithm is simple. Once they tell you that you are being monitored, then don't say anything that will incriminate yourself.
Meaning that you cannot have a frank and honest conversation with your lawyer.
As far as I can tell, your argument against it is that it restricts the rights of the guilty to get away with something. I see no way in which an innocent man could be hurt by this type of monitoring.
Clearly, you have never experienced the joys of our criminal justice system firsthand, or read about the tragedies inflicted on innocents.
Assume I am innocent of everything, but have a funny last name, creating sufficient probable cause to be arrested. The cops listen in as I tell my attorney everything. I explain that as a young and misguided youth, I once gave money to another guy with funny sounding name for a subscription to the newsletter he was peddling. I read a few issues, decided the other guy with a funny sounding name was way too funny for me, and trashed every newsletter after that. The cops investigate, and sure I gave that guy money. They investigate further, that guy sold my contact information to FunnyNamedTerrorists'R'Us, who put me in their big database, and a funny named but incredibly competetent sysadmin made backups and stored them offsite. FNT'R'Us resells my info and so on, and I am suddenly on every marketing list of every funny named spammer ever born. People without funny names make a retaliatory raid on each of these places which have my contact information, including a cool, dry, earthquake proof vault in the mountains of the funny name homeland. In court the prosecutor, with much vigor and insinuation tells the jury "This guy with the funny name claims he hasn't had any contact with the Funny Named Terrorist Liberation Front, but they sure know who he is... look at how many of their front organizations have made contact with him, sending him secret coded messages by e-mail, snail-mail, and over 1000 phone calls in the middle of dinner last month alone!!!"
Worse yet, I was scared to mention this to my lawyer, because I knew the cops were monitoring us.
So now they abuse their power by changing the laws when its convient.
The evidence is really good that they started changing laws before they took power for the purpose of taking power, abrogating any need to elect them.
Dave
First, the detainee must be informed of it, so there is no potential for the type of abuse which would make all detainees afraid to speak to their attorney; everyone would know when they were subject to such monitoring.
They are putting the listening devices in, and being trusted to turn them on and off at the correct time. "No potential for abuse" is a bit optimistic. Hollywood didn't come up with the idea of "accidentally" letting the witness see the guy getting booked and other charades on their own.
Second, and even more importantly, this monitoring cannot be used as evidence against the detainee.
Have you ever tried to backwards engineer anything? It is a lot easier to do the detective work to find evidence if you know what you are looking for during the search. The monitoring itself can't be used as evidence, but it can be used for other things, including locating other evidence to be used against you in a court of law.
Dave
When I submitted the same story?
2001-11-03 19:19:53 Public comment hearing on Microsoft settlement (articles,microsoft) (rejected)
Especially in light of the clock running on the public commentary period. Oh well, at least it is being discussed now, so I'll stop whining.
Dave
Really, in the current economic climate, all the monkeys should have been thrown out of the high-tech jobs, leaving only clueful people.
You are dangerously close to questioning the notion that we live in a meritocracy. Take the blue pill and you will feel much better tomorrow.
Dave