Yes, I am very familiar with Jury Nullification. I absolutely believe it is a Juror's moral responsibility to know it and apply it. But as a matter of pure fact, they typically will not. They will not be read, learned, or educated. The fact that the defendant is the defendant will cause most to assume guilt. In practice, the defendant's attorney will have to work hard to prove his client's innocence. If the client is not good looking, this can be very difficult.
I don't say this in ignorance. I have been called upon as an expert witness. The funny thing is, what I have witnessed most is prosecutors' willingness to try to twist the truth, leave out pertinent information or prevent it from being disclosed, and in fact try to take advantage of the ignorance of juries (and I mean ignorance of the particulars of an industry, for example, not that they are ignorant) to try to win a conviction when there is not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but reasonable probability of innocence.
Just like anyone else, they want to *win*. But they often seem to lose sight that *winning* is convicting the right person of the crime, if indeed a crime has been committed.
It cannot be left to Jury Nullification, which is a little known avenue for justice, and only one that is effective with an informed Jury (rare) who are given the right circumstances to detect a problem with the law itself, or how it is being applied, or with the punishments attached to conviction. Also, in many states, mere mention of it can get you into trouble with the court.
I think you are confusing the prosecution with the defense. It is not the prosecution's job to "throw what he can get away with at the defendant". The prosecution's interest should be to prosecute someone who they believe has committed a crime worthy of prosecution. It is certainly not the job of the jury to determine overreach. The judge is the arbiter of the law, and the jury is merely the arbiter of the fact.
The responsibility of defense is closer to your notion, as famously stated by Justice Byron White. But he spells out the responsibility of the prosecution, as well as other law enforcement, to get it right, even during the trial itself:
"“Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty.
The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.
Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.”
I talk to YECs all the time. It sounds to me like you are not talking to YECs, though. Sounds like you are actually referring to plain old "stupid" people. There are lots of them, so it's not hard to run into them. People come out with those types of statements regarding your chances of salvation don't even understand their own scriptures. Part of that is because 99.999% of them haven't actually read them. They have absorbed snippets of them over the years, but lack understanding of what information they actually convey. If they did, they would be a lot more scared of making blanket statements like that.
I always find it shocking that people get into such arguments regarding the age of the earth. For the YECs, I don't see how God could care about how old they think the earth is. It's inconsequential. For those who believe that the earth is billions of years old, I don't see how they can take themselves seriously, or care about the result. After all, the number has changed too many times to be of actual interest to anyone (exception below), and it has less than zero bearing on anyone's life. Those who spend untold amounts of time speculating on its age have another agenda. There's where the conflict with YECs comes in.
Since there is nothing to gain from the knowledge itself, the attempt has other motives behind it. First, those who want to "prove" that there is no God, or that if there was one, it certainly isn't the one depicted in the Christian faith. Lots of these people were raised as Catholics or members of other very well organized churches. They were taught from dogma, rather than the Bible. When the dogma failed, their faith was lost (often early) and they feel the need to "liberate" everyone else from the "shackles" of faith. Two, the opportunist looking to get paid for useless research. Some are self-delusional regarding the usefulness of their activity, and come up with all sorts of justifications for being a non-productive member of society. Some are just obsessed hobbyists who have found a way to fund their hobby. Three, the political operative who seeks something to use as leverage against an interest opposed to his or her own. Their lack of faith is not militant, but some other issue puts them at odds with Judeo-Christian groups, such as abortion.
The reaction of some YECs and other religious groups to "unbiased" science is a direct result of some very biased people who try to use very questionable science to undermine the foundations of their faith.
I speak with stupid people of every persuasion all of the time. We all hear them on radio and TV frequently. The trick is to associate with smart people, no matter their opinions. If you try, you will find them. I have talked with very intelligent Jehovah's Witnesses (also dumb ones). I have talked with very intelligent Atheists (also extremely stupid ones). Add Jews, Catholics, Protestants of various denominations, Buddhists, and Muslims, in about the same proportions. The smartest ones have read more of their source materials, and not relied on regurgitation of something someone told them in conversation. This includes the smart Atheists, whose source material can actually be rife with bias. It, like the faith-based material, must be read carefully to see what it says, and what it doesn't, or can't or refuses to say.
As a side note, it is interesting to learn of the many things that are misunderstood by people reading the Bible, due to a lack of cultural context. People aren't aware of underlying issues that existed thousands of years ago in foreign lands. Paul's letters are spectacular for seeing these, as he was dealing with completely different groups of people, and many had very different "problems" in the early Christian Churches.
Stage 1: We don't want you shooting pigeons, so we will harass and intimidate you with this handy dandy camera attached to a helicopter drone. We will use this to record and display to the public your activities on the land that you own or control.
Stage 2: Law enforcement officials advise us to stop, and attorneys representing you try to assert your private property expectation of privacy. You stop your pigeon shoot, and people start to leave your "event".
Stage 3: We launch anyway, since hey, we brought this cool toy all the way here. Might as well record you not breaking any laws on your own property. We will stop when we are good and ready.
Stage 4: You have foiled our fiendish plot by destroying our precious pigeon freedom fighter robot ally. However, since we carefully placed it *over a highway* (but we managed not to crash it ourselves, you must now forfeit your right to keep and bear arms. Oh, also: "We are already making plans for a considerably upscaled action in 2013." That's right, let's escalate the situation. No duty to retreat, right?
This is why the founding fathers enshrined weapon ownership in the Bill of Rights. 200-plus years ago, they recognized that tyrants would always seek to seize the weapons of the people.
I have a better idea. All drones are to be registered licensed with with the FAA. Before flying a drone outside of a non-approved training facility, a certain quantity of flying hours must be logged under supervision by a licensed professional. Before a craft is purchased, a background check and 7 day hold is required. A statement of intended use shall be recorded, and depending on jurisdiction, a local judge or sheriff shall have final say over the issuance of the permit for any specific craft. All air traffic rules must be obeyed. Hovering or flying along places of public transit (roadways, walkways, bike paths) is strictly prohibited, to lessen risk to those individuals traveling on said routes should the craft crash or lose control.
The drone may not be used to harass or intimidate another person. Such action will result in forfeiture of craft and license, as well as possible criminal charges and jail time, depending on intent. All transfers of craft shall be effected through a Federally-licensed aircraft dealer.
That's a start. But as various abuses of these craft by individuals with strange agendas continue, we will expand the laws covering the use of them, and certainly ban their ownership in certain communities altogether.
A "normal" account not only charges the percentage, but also auxiliary fees associated with all of your "rewards".
A Square account entails the merchant agreeing that all funds over $1000 received in a given week will be held for 30 days before being released to them. This is not something many people can do (give a processing company a 30 day loan). They have also only been around for a couple of years at most, and during that time they have accrued quite a few complaints. I am not saying it's a bad service. I am saying that it is a poor fit for many retail operators.
It seems to me that you might want to ask some of your local merchants how much of the money that they "collect" actually goes to the processor/card companies. This would be a better way of seeing the actual costs, rather than relying on your own calculations. Your calculations may be logical, but the statements the merchants get are not necessarily so. You are expecting honest dealings from an industry known for shenanigans.
It's called planning ahead. I certainly don't have to rush off to find an ATM branch. I carry cash with me. Now, perhaps you live in a dangerous area. In that case, I think you are smart to use the card instead. But trying to justify passing the costs of your convenience onto others (by contributing to the price increase) is misguided.
Ask people if they feel that adding 2.75% immediately to the cost of goods and services is desirable. Sales tax in NY is 8%. What do you think people would say to a proposal to raise it to 10.75%?
You getting cash back off the deal, or points, or whatever else is actually not even part of that 2.75%. That is included in other Merchant Account processing fees. If you look at the Merchant's statement, you will see them listed. People who use those cards are in effect forcing a discount from the Merchant. The sick part is that when Merchants sign up for these accounts, they are often not told by vendor that this will happen, even if they specifically ask for a list of any possible fees. After things don't add up the first few months, they call and complain. Then they are directed to the booklet "agreement" which details such things.
Except that this cost to the merchant increases over time, and the discount rate is a percentage of the price. So every expense reflected the the store owners price increases will also increase the processing costs, which will increase the price again. Better not to feed into that loop.
Technically, there is some cost resulting from going to the bank, but it pales in comparison with the processing fees of the card company for a small business. Especially retail (as opposed to service), where the price you are selling something for includes the cost of getting the product from a distributor. Your fee includes a "discount rate", often around 2.5%. So, $2000 in sales of goods that cost you $1200 to put on the shelf (I am being conservative, here) will cost you $50 at that rate. Worth a trip to the bank, I think.
Well, except that doing this does not come for free. The credit card companies pay for those points/miles by charging the merchant extra for that card in "processing fees". So in effect, you are taking a discount from the merchant. Now, I wouldn't feel *too* bad about taking that discount from, say, a big box store. They probably have very tailored agreements that minimize the processing fees.
However, when dealing with Mom & Pop, who started taking credit cards as a result of whiny people (not you, just whiny people who are out there) complaining, it can really add up. I'm sure we have all seen that person buying the half and half, or soda, or what have you, and whipping out the card, debit or credit. Yes, sometimes we are caught with no cash. But that should train us to carry it.
I try to pay cash for as much as possible. I try to deal with reputable places that will stand behind their products, of course, so that risks of using the cash are low. I am investing in the shop's maintenance of lower prices, and trying to cut out one of the many potential middle men. I believe that it is a practice to at least consider.
Wow. What have you been *reading*? My best guess is that you had some very "dynamic" professors while going to college. There is no addressing anything you have written, as your theory of a sudden reversal of the parties is so ingrained into your belief system it would take a crisis of faith to shake it.
I could point you to various biographies of the politicians of the time, and platforms adhered to by William Jennings Bryan vs. those of McKinley in the late 1800s to early 1900s, but it won't matter. As much as you decry others as being bigoted, well, you are free to use the public domain quote and turn it right back around.
Actually, they were Republicans, and became unelectable when Democrats in the South used various schemes to prevent such an occurrence. You didn't see any quantity of Black Democrats in office, either.
From Wikipedia:
"State legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890–1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s."
and from the same article:
"During the Great Depression, many black voters switched allegiances from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, in support of the New Deal economic, social network, and work policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration"
The Democratic party has been able, to some extent, to scam a large percentage of the Black electorate into thinking that they are on their side, and that Republicans and Conservatives and the like are bigots. That smoke screen will last only so long, and labeling every Black person who happens to be running as a Republican a stooge or Uncle Tom or what have you will start to backfire.
There is nothing of truth in your half-baked assertions.
Edward G. Walker, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature Charles L. Mitchell, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature John Willis Menard, Republican, 1868, Louisiana, U.S. Congressman, denied a seat due to wrangling by racists, neither candidate seated Hiram Rhoades Revels, Republican, 1870, Mississippi, U.S. Senator Black delegates Robert B. Elliott, Joseph H. Rainey, and John R. Lynch deliver addresses at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, 1872 John R. Lynch, Republican, 1872, Mississippi, U.S. Congressman Blanche K. Bruce, Republican, 1874, Mississippi, U.S. Senate Crystal Bird Fauset, Democrat turned Republican, 1936, Pennsylvania, State Legislature. "In 1944, disappointed by the Democratic Party’s failure to advance civil rights, Fauset switched to the Republican Party", from http://www.blackpast.org/ J.C. Watts, Republican, 1994, Oklahoma, U.S. Congressman
There are actually quite a few others. Start your research here, maybe, and take a breather from Slashdot. Trust me, you aren't adding any value to the conversation anyway.
Funny you compare Albuterol with Toradol. Toradol is not safe for extended use. In fact, you aren't supposed to take it for more than about a week at a time. It can cause severe damage to vital organs. Don't get me wrong, it is a miraculous drug. But, like Albuterol, is not a perfect fit in all situations.
Albuterol is actually not as effective as an Epinephrine inhaler when someone is suffering from an Asthma attack. The time period until relief is achieved is much longer, and some people get very little relief from Albuterol. Some cannot cannot actually use Albuterol, and it's side effects can be quite dangerous. Primatene has very few side effects, and few long term risks with normal levels of usage.
Regarding the propellants, the CFC propellant in Primatene is much more effective at delivering the medicine than HFA-based propellants. That is one of the reasons for the delay. Armstrong actually bought the Primatene product from the previous owner just a couple of years ago. But go ahead an oversimplify it as a case of greedy pharmas looking to take advantage of us. Never mind the fact that they bought the line knowing (admittedly) that they had to get a "replacement" up and running quickly. Current estimates are 6 months after the new year to get FDA approval.
Calling their toll free number yields a live person, who will assure asthma sufferers that they plan to have the replacement product as soon as they are allowed to ship it. At the same time, they admit that the new propellant will not be quite as fast. Okay for most, as long as it is not your loved one expiring.
Do you have any data to back up your assertions that my claims are false? As for "hyper" kids, we had plenty. 99% of them grew out of it.
I don't know which state you live in, but in my state, you get enough administrators in the form of principals and assistant principals to give each kid in the district a full day with one of them every year. We have average budgets of over 25K per student per year. And every year, they threaten to cut things like sports, art classes, etc. unless the budget passes. The contingency budget is set to something around 98% of the proposed budget. The Superintendent makes over 200K per year, and the Assistant Super is also 6 figures. They both have "Executive Assistants".
60 years ago, we had local "schoolhouses" in this area, with maybe a few teachers and no "administrators". Some areas had something resembling a modern school. Maybe if you live in a City, then 60 years ago your version of events would approach reality, but for the vast majority of the country, the educational system has grown beyond belief. For all of that growth, basic literacy and math skills have declined.
In fact, it means one shouldn't make sweeping statements about things one does not actually know. Which is exactly why the "3 elements" statement is so ridiculous. It is almost guaranteed (not just possible, but almost guaranteed) to be WRONG. Repeating such silliness on the notion that the little scraps of information we have are sufficient is actually a disservice to science. It leads to a general mistrust of those in the field, and taints the reputation of the work that might actually have some value to it.
Teachers had far fewer resources, and schools had far fewer administrators 60 years ago, but got results at least equal to the results obtained today. They probably got more results. But between the bullcrap bureaucracy and kids being labeled with hundreds of different "learning disabilities" (truly amazing how many kids in my area are "dyslexic" or have "ADHD"), we have young adults entering the workplace who are profoundly stupid. Luckily, they are completely equipped with a social agenda. They know all the "right ways to think". They know nothing about thinking for themselves.
They are the same people who Penn & Teller displayed on their Enironmental Hysteria episode of Bull****. Likewise the episode on diversity education on the modern campus.
I guess the point I was making was unclear as a result of your perspective on the "widely accepted" postulations.
It's entertaining and depressing at the same time. People engage in mental self-gratification, using wacky unproven theories by astrophysicists who have never even gotten out of the solar system as a proxy for knowledge. Science actually doesn't work that way, despite the fantasy land that has been constructed around the field of astronomy.
I already knew it was extreme, but I must acknowledge my ignorance of the fact that they are trying to insist that not only were there only 3 elements created shortly after the big bang, but that they know which ones they were. Talk about taking a leap! Here's a plan: immediately revoke any public funding for any "scientists" or organizations who try to foist a wild assumption on an unsuspecting, parroting public by presenting it as a fact.
Why isn't this modded up as funny? This is a fantastic, stream-of-consciousness pile of awesome. For my money, it doesn't get any better than when Michael Bolton sings, "That's because women hate holding flashlights, because they are complete rubbish at it."
Yes, well I am very familiar with the "over-qualified" bit, and yes, it is tiresome to an extent. However, there is also some gut feeling that goes into those sorts of decisions. The following is not to say I support those notions, and I have no love for Human Resources departments.
Someone who cannot get a job that matches their qualifications, or has seemingly over-educated without purpose can set off red flags in peoples' minds. Are they unsuitable for the career they studied for? Are they lacking in common sense? Do they lack dedication? Do they flit from one flower to the next? Why are they seeking a position making $15 when that would not service their presumed student loan debt?
There are many reasons why people get Master's degrees or go after a PhD. I have met several different types, myself. A few of those types I would not hire, and not for reasons of being overqualified.
To reiterate, though, I despise those who throw away the resume on those grounds. They should be talking to the person first. Same thing goes for people who throw away any resume that is more than 1 page in length.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I am very familiar with Jury Nullification. I absolutely believe it is a Juror's moral responsibility to know it and apply it. But as a matter of pure fact, they typically will not. They will not be read, learned, or educated. The fact that the defendant is the defendant will cause most to assume guilt. In practice, the defendant's attorney will have to work hard to prove his client's innocence. If the client is not good looking, this can be very difficult.
I don't say this in ignorance. I have been called upon as an expert witness. The funny thing is, what I have witnessed most is prosecutors' willingness to try to twist the truth, leave out pertinent information or prevent it from being disclosed, and in fact try to take advantage of the ignorance of juries (and I mean ignorance of the particulars of an industry, for example, not that they are ignorant) to try to win a conviction when there is not only reasonable doubt of guilt, but reasonable probability of innocence.
Just like anyone else, they want to *win*. But they often seem to lose sight that *winning* is convicting the right person of the crime, if indeed a crime has been committed.
It cannot be left to Jury Nullification, which is a little known avenue for justice, and only one that is effective with an informed Jury (rare) who are given the right circumstances to detect a problem with the law itself, or how it is being applied, or with the punishments attached to conviction. Also, in many states, mere mention of it can get you into trouble with the court.
I think you are confusing the prosecution with the defense. It is not the prosecution's job to "throw what he can get away with at the defendant". The prosecution's interest should be to prosecute someone who they believe has committed a crime worthy of prosecution. It is certainly not the job of the jury to determine overreach. The judge is the arbiter of the law, and the jury is merely the arbiter of the fact.
The responsibility of defense is closer to your notion, as famously stated by Justice Byron White. But he spells out the responsibility of the prosecution, as well as other law enforcement, to get it right, even during the trial itself:
"“Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty.
The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth.
Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.”
Nicely done.
This behavior needs to be encouraged.
The best of capitalism is forced sterilization? I didn't believe it when I heard it recently, but there does seem to be something to it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/11372-us-uk-taxpayers-funding-forced-sterilization-in-india
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/us-and-uk-foreign-aid-funds-mass.html
So, as they said in China just a short while back, when they fail to educate, they will have to take direct action?
She couldn't find a more worthy cause closer to home? Catastrophic issues facing local families in her own state?
It's pretty sad how people will sell out their country so cheaply, for a few extra bucks for their state.
I talk to YECs all the time. It sounds to me like you are not talking to YECs, though. Sounds like you are actually referring to plain old "stupid" people. There are lots of them, so it's not hard to run into them. People come out with those types of statements regarding your chances of salvation don't even understand their own scriptures. Part of that is because 99.999% of them haven't actually read them. They have absorbed snippets of them over the years, but lack understanding of what information they actually convey. If they did, they would be a lot more scared of making blanket statements like that.
I always find it shocking that people get into such arguments regarding the age of the earth. For the YECs, I don't see how God could care about how old they think the earth is. It's inconsequential. For those who believe that the earth is billions of years old, I don't see how they can take themselves seriously, or care about the result. After all, the number has changed too many times to be of actual interest to anyone (exception below), and it has less than zero bearing on anyone's life. Those who spend untold amounts of time speculating on its age have another agenda. There's where the conflict with YECs comes in.
Since there is nothing to gain from the knowledge itself, the attempt has other motives behind it. First, those who want to "prove" that there is no God, or that if there was one, it certainly isn't the one depicted in the Christian faith. Lots of these people were raised as Catholics or members of other very well organized churches. They were taught from dogma, rather than the Bible. When the dogma failed, their faith was lost (often early) and they feel the need to "liberate" everyone else from the "shackles" of faith. Two, the opportunist looking to get paid for useless research. Some are self-delusional regarding the usefulness of their activity, and come up with all sorts of justifications for being a non-productive member of society. Some are just obsessed hobbyists who have found a way to fund their hobby. Three, the political operative who seeks something to use as leverage against an interest opposed to his or her own. Their lack of faith is not militant, but some other issue puts them at odds with Judeo-Christian groups, such as abortion.
The reaction of some YECs and other religious groups to "unbiased" science is a direct result of some very biased people who try to use very questionable science to undermine the foundations of their faith.
I speak with stupid people of every persuasion all of the time. We all hear them on radio and TV frequently. The trick is to associate with smart people, no matter their opinions. If you try, you will find them. I have talked with very intelligent Jehovah's Witnesses (also dumb ones). I have talked with very intelligent Atheists (also extremely stupid ones). Add Jews, Catholics, Protestants of various denominations, Buddhists, and Muslims, in about the same proportions. The smartest ones have read more of their source materials, and not relied on regurgitation of something someone told them in conversation. This includes the smart Atheists, whose source material can actually be rife with bias. It, like the faith-based material, must be read carefully to see what it says, and what it doesn't, or can't or refuses to say.
As a side note, it is interesting to learn of the many things that are misunderstood by people reading the Bible, due to a lack of cultural context. People aren't aware of underlying issues that existed thousands of years ago in foreign lands. Paul's letters are spectacular for seeing these, as he was dealing with completely different groups of people, and many had very different "problems" in the early Christian Churches.
Ah! How clever.
Stage 1: We don't want you shooting pigeons, so we will harass and intimidate you with this handy dandy camera attached to a helicopter drone. We will use this to record and display to the public your activities on the land that you own or control.
Stage 2: Law enforcement officials advise us to stop, and attorneys representing you try to assert your private property expectation of privacy. You stop your pigeon shoot, and people start to leave your "event".
Stage 3: We launch anyway, since hey, we brought this cool toy all the way here. Might as well record you not breaking any laws on your own property. We will stop when we are good and ready.
Stage 4: You have foiled our fiendish plot by destroying our precious pigeon freedom fighter robot ally. However, since we carefully placed it *over a highway* (but we managed not to crash it ourselves, you must now forfeit your right to keep and bear arms. Oh, also: "We are already making plans for a considerably upscaled action in 2013." That's right, let's escalate the situation. No duty to retreat, right?
This is why the founding fathers enshrined weapon ownership in the Bill of Rights. 200-plus years ago, they recognized that tyrants would always seek to seize the weapons of the people.
I have a better idea. All drones are to be registered licensed with with the FAA. Before flying a drone outside of a non-approved training facility, a certain quantity of flying hours must be logged under supervision by a licensed professional. Before a craft is purchased, a background check and 7 day hold is required. A statement of intended use shall be recorded, and depending on jurisdiction, a local judge or sheriff shall have final say over the issuance of the permit for any specific craft. All air traffic rules must be obeyed. Hovering or flying along places of public transit (roadways, walkways, bike paths) is strictly prohibited, to lessen risk to those individuals traveling on said routes should the craft crash or lose control.
The drone may not be used to harass or intimidate another person. Such action will result in forfeiture of craft and license, as well as possible criminal charges and jail time, depending on intent. All transfers of craft shall be effected through a Federally-licensed aircraft dealer.
That's a start. But as various abuses of these craft by individuals with strange agendas continue, we will expand the laws covering the use of them, and certainly ban their ownership in certain communities altogether.
A "normal" account not only charges the percentage, but also auxiliary fees associated with all of your "rewards".
A Square account entails the merchant agreeing that all funds over $1000 received in a given week will be held for 30 days before being released to them. This is not something many people can do (give a processing company a 30 day loan). They have also only been around for a couple of years at most, and during that time they have accrued quite a few complaints. I am not saying it's a bad service. I am saying that it is a poor fit for many retail operators.
It seems to me that you might want to ask some of your local merchants how much of the money that they "collect" actually goes to the processor/card companies. This would be a better way of seeing the actual costs, rather than relying on your own calculations. Your calculations may be logical, but the statements the merchants get are not necessarily so. You are expecting honest dealings from an industry known for shenanigans.
It's called planning ahead. I certainly don't have to rush off to find an ATM branch. I carry cash with me. Now, perhaps you live in a dangerous area. In that case, I think you are smart to use the card instead. But trying to justify passing the costs of your convenience onto others (by contributing to the price increase) is misguided.
Ask people if they feel that adding 2.75% immediately to the cost of goods and services is desirable. Sales tax in NY is 8%. What do you think people would say to a proposal to raise it to 10.75%?
You getting cash back off the deal, or points, or whatever else is actually not even part of that 2.75%. That is included in other Merchant Account processing fees. If you look at the Merchant's statement, you will see them listed. People who use those cards are in effect forcing a discount from the Merchant. The sick part is that when Merchants sign up for these accounts, they are often not told by vendor that this will happen, even if they specifically ask for a list of any possible fees. After things don't add up the first few months, they call and complain. Then they are directed to the booklet "agreement" which details such things.
Except that this cost to the merchant increases over time, and the discount rate is a percentage of the price. So every expense reflected the the store owners price increases will also increase the processing costs, which will increase the price again. Better not to feed into that loop.
Technically, there is some cost resulting from going to the bank, but it pales in comparison with the processing fees of the card company for a small business. Especially retail (as opposed to service), where the price you are selling something for includes the cost of getting the product from a distributor. Your fee includes a "discount rate", often around 2.5%. So, $2000 in sales of goods that cost you $1200 to put on the shelf (I am being conservative, here) will cost you $50 at that rate. Worth a trip to the bank, I think.
Well, except that doing this does not come for free. The credit card companies pay for those points/miles by charging the merchant extra for that card in "processing fees". So in effect, you are taking a discount from the merchant. Now, I wouldn't feel *too* bad about taking that discount from, say, a big box store. They probably have very tailored agreements that minimize the processing fees.
However, when dealing with Mom & Pop, who started taking credit cards as a result of whiny people (not you, just whiny people who are out there) complaining, it can really add up. I'm sure we have all seen that person buying the half and half, or soda, or what have you, and whipping out the card, debit or credit. Yes, sometimes we are caught with no cash. But that should train us to carry it.
I try to pay cash for as much as possible. I try to deal with reputable places that will stand behind their products, of course, so that risks of using the cash are low. I am investing in the shop's maintenance of lower prices, and trying to cut out one of the many potential middle men. I believe that it is a practice to at least consider.
Wow. What have you been *reading*? My best guess is that you had some very "dynamic" professors while going to college. There is no addressing anything you have written, as your theory of a sudden reversal of the parties is so ingrained into your belief system it would take a crisis of faith to shake it.
I could point you to various biographies of the politicians of the time, and platforms adhered to by William Jennings Bryan vs. those of McKinley in the late 1800s to early 1900s, but it won't matter. As much as you decry others as being bigoted, well, you are free to use the public domain quote and turn it right back around.
Actually, they were Republicans, and became unelectable when Democrats in the South used various schemes to prevent such an occurrence. You didn't see any quantity of Black Democrats in office, either.
From Wikipedia:
"State legislatures reduced voting by blacks by passing more restrictive electoral and voter registration rules, amending constitutions to the same ends from 1890–1910, and passing Jim Crow laws to establish racial segregation and restrict labor rights, movement and organizing by blacks. The Democratic Party essentially dominated the "Solid South" until the 1960s."
and from the same article:
"During the Great Depression, many black voters switched allegiances from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party, in support of the New Deal economic, social network, and work policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration"
The Democratic party has been able, to some extent, to scam a large percentage of the Black electorate into thinking that they are on their side, and that Republicans and Conservatives and the like are bigots. That smoke screen will last only so long, and labeling every Black person who happens to be running as a Republican a stooge or Uncle Tom or what have you will start to backfire.
There is nothing of truth in your half-baked assertions.
Edward G. Walker, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
Charles L. Mitchell, Republican, 1866, Massachusetts, State Legislature
John Willis Menard, Republican, 1868, Louisiana, U.S. Congressman, denied a seat due to wrangling by racists, neither candidate seated
Hiram Rhoades Revels, Republican, 1870, Mississippi, U.S. Senator
Black delegates Robert B. Elliott, Joseph H. Rainey, and John R. Lynch deliver addresses at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, 1872
John R. Lynch, Republican, 1872, Mississippi, U.S. Congressman
Blanche K. Bruce, Republican, 1874, Mississippi, U.S. Senate
Crystal Bird Fauset, Democrat turned Republican, 1936, Pennsylvania, State Legislature. "In 1944, disappointed by the Democratic Party’s failure to advance civil rights, Fauset switched to the Republican Party", from http://www.blackpast.org/
J.C. Watts, Republican, 1994, Oklahoma, U.S. Congressman
There are actually quite a few others. Start your research here, maybe, and take a breather from Slashdot. Trust me, you aren't adding any value to the conversation anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress
Funny you compare Albuterol with Toradol. Toradol is not safe for extended use. In fact, you aren't supposed to take it for more than about a week at a time. It can cause severe damage to vital organs. Don't get me wrong, it is a miraculous drug. But, like Albuterol, is not a perfect fit in all situations.
Albuterol is actually not as effective as an Epinephrine inhaler when someone is suffering from an Asthma attack. The time period until relief is achieved is much longer, and some people get very little relief from Albuterol. Some cannot cannot actually use Albuterol, and it's side effects can be quite dangerous. Primatene has very few side effects, and few long term risks with normal levels of usage.
Regarding the propellants, the CFC propellant in Primatene is much more effective at delivering the medicine than HFA-based propellants. That is one of the reasons for the delay. Armstrong actually bought the Primatene product from the previous owner just a couple of years ago. But go ahead an oversimplify it as a case of greedy pharmas looking to take advantage of us. Never mind the fact that they bought the line knowing (admittedly) that they had to get a "replacement" up and running quickly. Current estimates are 6 months after the new year to get FDA approval.
Calling their toll free number yields a live person, who will assure asthma sufferers that they plan to have the replacement product as soon as they are allowed to ship it. At the same time, they admit that the new propellant will not be quite as fast. Okay for most, as long as it is not your loved one expiring.
Do you have any data to back up your assertions that my claims are false? As for "hyper" kids, we had plenty. 99% of them grew out of it.
I don't know which state you live in, but in my state, you get enough administrators in the form of principals and assistant principals to give each kid in the district a full day with one of them every year. We have average budgets of over 25K per student per year. And every year, they threaten to cut things like sports, art classes, etc. unless the budget passes. The contingency budget is set to something around 98% of the proposed budget. The Superintendent makes over 200K per year, and the Assistant Super is also 6 figures. They both have "Executive Assistants".
60 years ago, we had local "schoolhouses" in this area, with maybe a few teachers and no "administrators". Some areas had something resembling a modern school. Maybe if you live in a City, then 60 years ago your version of events would approach reality, but for the vast majority of the country, the educational system has grown beyond belief. For all of that growth, basic literacy and math skills have declined.
In fact, it means one shouldn't make sweeping statements about things one does not actually know. Which is exactly why the "3 elements" statement is so ridiculous. It is almost guaranteed (not just possible, but almost guaranteed) to be WRONG. Repeating such silliness on the notion that the little scraps of information we have are sufficient is actually a disservice to science. It leads to a general mistrust of those in the field, and taints the reputation of the work that might actually have some value to it.
Teachers had far fewer resources, and schools had far fewer administrators 60 years ago, but got results at least equal to the results obtained today. They probably got more results. But between the bullcrap bureaucracy and kids being labeled with hundreds of different "learning disabilities" (truly amazing how many kids in my area are "dyslexic" or have "ADHD"), we have young adults entering the workplace who are profoundly stupid. Luckily, they are completely equipped with a social agenda. They know all the "right ways to think". They know nothing about thinking for themselves.
They are the same people who Penn & Teller displayed on their Enironmental Hysteria episode of Bull****. Likewise the episode on diversity education on the modern campus.
I guess the point I was making was unclear as a result of your perspective on the "widely accepted" postulations.
It's entertaining and depressing at the same time. People engage in mental self-gratification, using wacky unproven theories by astrophysicists who have never even gotten out of the solar system as a proxy for knowledge. Science actually doesn't work that way, despite the fantasy land that has been constructed around the field of astronomy.
I already knew it was extreme, but I must acknowledge my ignorance of the fact that they are trying to insist that not only were there only 3 elements created shortly after the big bang, but that they know which ones they were. Talk about taking a leap! Here's a plan: immediately revoke any public funding for any "scientists" or organizations who try to foist a wild assumption on an unsuspecting, parroting public by presenting it as a fact.
"The only elements created shortly after the Big Bang were lithium, hydrogen and helium".
Wow. I can't believe people actually say this stuff. And from the looks of it, they believe it.
Why isn't this modded up as funny? This is a fantastic, stream-of-consciousness pile of awesome. For my money, it doesn't get any better than when Michael Bolton sings, "That's because women hate holding flashlights, because they are complete rubbish at it."
Bravo!
And why does she need $100K? I didn't. And easy has nothing to do with it. If your work is easy, maybe you should switch to something less easy.
Yes, well I am very familiar with the "over-qualified" bit, and yes, it is tiresome to an extent. However, there is also some gut feeling that goes into those sorts of decisions. The following is not to say I support those notions, and I have no love for Human Resources departments.
Someone who cannot get a job that matches their qualifications, or has seemingly over-educated without purpose can set off red flags in peoples' minds. Are they unsuitable for the career they studied for? Are they lacking in common sense? Do they lack dedication? Do they flit from one flower to the next? Why are they seeking a position making $15 when that would not service their presumed student loan debt?
There are many reasons why people get Master's degrees or go after a PhD. I have met several different types, myself. A few of those types I would not hire, and not for reasons of being overqualified.
To reiterate, though, I despise those who throw away the resume on those grounds. They should be talking to the person first. Same thing goes for people who throw away any resume that is more than 1 page in length.