There is an entire generation of people who refer to Atari and other game system cartridges as "tapes" because one of the first transportable "mass" memory devices for home computers was audio tapes.
Our local newscasters quite often instruct us to "log in to kgw.com for more information" on the story they just reported. Most of them know that you don't need to actually log in to access the information, but they're using the common vernacular that most people recognize.
I doubt there was a single/. reader who didn't immediately know what the phrase "video card" referred to.
fair price, and offer your product/service in convenient ways, people will buy rather than steal, for the most part.
This argument fails because it assumes you have the right to decide what someone else can charge for their efforts and that they must distribute it in a way that is acceptable to you.
Thus, you've already decided before the work is published that you have rights to control that work and that by the act of publishing it the author has abandoned his.
In other words:
As a result, HBO, who I would be willing to pay a fair amount to (even through a third party like netflix), refuses to provide what I desire and take my willingly offered money. And then they bemoan the fact that people steal from them. Boo fucking hoo.
You've decided what you want to pay for their service and if they don't accept your offer then you change your offer to zero and take what you want anyway.
You could always get as much health care as you could pay for.
Actually you can get as much health care as it takes to deal with your critical issues, whether you can pay for it or not. The sign in our local ER is clear: they cannot refuse to treat you because you don't have money.
Once you are out of the ER, that's when ability to pay is an issue.
Someone has to pay for all those subsidies and expanded health insurance coverage.
ACA is supposed to be for people who couldn't buy health insurance. Here is the story of a UCONN law student who was paying $39/month for health insurance who went to the ACA exchange looking for a cheaper plan. He found it: medicaid. He now pays nothing at all for his health insurance, the taxpayers are footing the entire bill. So, while he's paying $39 less a month, we're picking up the tab, and it costs us all more.
And this talks about higher costs for young people overall. So "pay less" is a very localized phenomenon.
I've seen other news stories that say the police officer "hit a barrier" with his own car.
The stories in today's paper report that she ran through a barrier leading to the White House, was temporarily stopped by the second set, and hit a Secret Service agent while she was backing out of that impediment. She then continued down the street towards the Capitol where she hit another cop.
This proves exactly my point about why/. is not the right place for this story. Everyone is saying what they think happened, it's all second hand from some other source, and much of it is incorrect. Why not just go to the sources directly? The only reason I can see for not doing that is if you want to be misinformed with as much conjecture and wild supposition as possible.
So what universal health care did you expect, and was this one significantly different?
Since ACA is not universal health care, it is mandatory health insurance, you've reached a point where no further debate is worth the time. Except to correct one deliberate incorrect statement on your part:
Ah yes, the age old, "If I can't think of a way to do it, it must be impossible."
YOU are the one who claimed that nobody could figure out a way of changing the system without leaving people destitute. I'm simply pointing out that you want the change while knowing that it can't be done without hurting people.
especially you, a troll
You've now been caught in a deliberate misquote, and I'm the troll. Ok.
A conditional statement where the initial condition isn't met isn't wrong, the condition is "false". The statement as a whole is quite correct. If you get paid on the last day of the month and the shutdown ends on the 20th, you will see no difference in how you are getting paid. "If you get paid on the last day of the month" is neither right nor wrong since it makes no declarative statement about what the actual conditions are. For the statement to be wrong the rest of the sentence would have to be incorrect when the conditional part is true.
Perhaps a coding example would help?
if( x==5 ) printf( "x is equal to five\n");
If x isn't equal to five, the code is still absolutely correct.
WTF is wrong with you?
I went to school and learned how to read english. What's your excuse?
I never would have bought an Evanesance album had I not downloaded it for free and decided they were way too good not to support buy buying their alums.
On the opposite side of that coin, I will never buy a David Weber book because I was able to get two of them for free from his publisher (Baen) and learned I didn't like his work at all. That's after a couple of friends recommended him. (He seems to be really big on describing horrendous violence in gruesome detail.)
No, that's precisely what a limited liability company is designed to prevent.
So, I come up with a great idea for the next fad. Something like pet rocks. I mortgage my house, empty my savings, create an "LLC", spend it all on advertising and production, and the idea flops.
You're saying I can call someone and say "I failed, please give me all my money back" because I created an LLC? Or have I actually lost everything, just like the person you said was wrong claimed?
An LLC may protect you from some things, but it does not protect you against putting all your money into a company and then losing it all when it fails.
No. If the investment is bad, there is no means of production (since that is privately held), therefore the employee cannot get paid.
That company of mine that failed, the employees got paid for packaging up the product, and I wound up with nothing. Now, after my business folds they aren't getting paid, but neither are they spending their 8 hours a day packaging up gimcracks, they're free to find other employment. I'm still left without a house or savings.
Nobody said capitalism was designed to give people a job for life, just as it isn't guaranteed to return a profit on an investment, or even return the original investment. I risked my money, I deserve to get the profits if I was a success.
Oh, and I say this as someone who did start up a successful business by working in an office and saving up money.
Starting a successful company requires more than working in an office and saying up money. If you mean you got the capital to start one that way, ok, but then if you folded the company without paying your employees you aren't a success, you are scum. Not paying employees isn't an inherent feature of capitalism.
Note that running into a police car is not actually a good excuse for gunning down an unarmed woman.
You have admitted that she was in a car, which is a several thousand pound deadly weapon when used to run people down, and a high speed chase in Washington DC near the Capitol Building is a "get run down" moment waiting to happen for someone.
And, of course, she hadn't just run into a police car, she was continuing to flee. She was a continuing threat to everyone around her, including pedestrians and other drivers. The use of deadly force to stop someone who has used deadly force already and is continuing to do so is quite appropriate. This "unarmed woman" defense kind of ignores the entire situation.
Somehow I knew you were going to say this. There's two (at least) problems with that statement. First, nobody knew what was in it until the congress voted for it. Remember the catchy slogan supporters came up with (or was it just Pelosi, or Reid?): you won't know what's in it until you vote for it. And even so, the congress critters did not go through a vote cycle with anything close to an ACA bill in the hopper so their constituents could know what they were voting on. In other words, nobody in the mass populace voted for the ACA and they aren't responsible for the mess it is making. Just as nobody in the mass populace voted for SS.
Second, there are an awful lot of Republicans who were elected on the premise that there wouldn't be an ACA no matter what it said. Thus, every Republican who voted to delay the ACA in the current continuing resolution is doing exactly what they were elected to do. Now, you seem to imply that doing what the electorate sent you to do is the right thing when it comes to congresspeople who voted for the black-box ACA, so pot, meet kettle.
It's, by definition, not a Ponzi if there are payouts to people who never paid in, right?
So when you fail to show that the current SS recipients are the people to blame for the existence of SS, switch to debating whether SS is a true Ponzi scheme or not. Yes, a scheme can be a Ponzi scheme for the vast majority of people who are forced to participate even if it is a simple handout for some who didn't pay in. But this doesn't change the fact that the blame for SS rests with the people who created it, and that's not the people who were forced to participate. You'll notice that Congress and the Prez are exempted from that, too.
That could be changed any time. SS could be "privatized" anytime. The problem is nobody could come up with any plan to privatize it, other than ones which would have a very high likelihood of leaving old people staving to death alone in slums.
You're simply fascinating. You claim it could be privatized anytime knowing that doing so would leave people destitute and starving. The destitute part is a pretty good reason why it can't be privatized. Most people with any care for others at all would say that. Where is you compassion, man?
The Republicans had the presidency and both houses in the '80s, right? But no fix then. The Democrats have had chances too since then, and neither did anything about it. That's proof neither wants to fix it. Broken is better.
You can't "fix it" in the way you want without leaving people who were forced to participate with the promise of support in their retirement years destitute, which is deliberately breaking a promise well after the money has been collected. I notice that you didn't pick up on the K-Mart analogy, so either you're ok with being denied the TV after you've paid for it or you're ignoring something that you can't answer.
Welfare/SS is the bribe to the poor to prevent a revolt while the 1% triples their holdings.
Now it's the lame old class envy argument. SS is the payout on the promise that the liberals made to everyone when they created the system. Bribe? Right. Everyone on SS is voting for FDR. Well, you know, there are a lot of people who see welfare as a bribe to vote for the people who want to keep handing out more money despite deficits and repeated debt ceiling increases. But for most people, it isn't a bribe, it is a promise kept for their participation in a Ponzi scheme.
By the way, the anxiety of the youth who are paying in is why it is a Ponzi. They're the next level of participation so the previous participants can get their payout. They want to bail out and leave Grandma eating dog food. Very compassionate.
1. By reading specific articles that colleagues recommend.
Hmmm. So you know only what they know. Could work ok.
2. By using a search engine.
Search engines find words and phrases. They don't vet the material they return, nor do they usually return only what you are actually looking for. You've replaced the problem of finding relevant articles in the tables of contents of 304 journals with the problem of finding relevant articles in the 345,289 hits returned by Google.
And if you are going to just Google for the articles, why have 304 journals at all? Just put all the articles on the web and use Google to find them.
Injured cop did NOT get hit by woman, he ran into something else while chasing woman.
The Non-SlashDot-News-Network report I have seen says:
She hit a Capitol Police car near the base of Capitol Hill, injuring an officer,...
In other words, she ran into a police officer with the several thousand pound weapon she was driving. He was in the car so she didn't make direct contact, so technically I guess you are right: she ran into the car, he ran into the inside of his own car. What a pedantic twist. Congratulations.
SS as practiced by most places (other governments and private companies) isn't a Ponzi.
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the US SS system and the people who are in the US drawing SS benefits.
Yes, the voters that are now collecting SS are the ones that did this.
No, the people who created the system did this. That would be FDR and the other liberals in congress. The people didn't vote for the SS system any more than they voted for ACA.
Not SS itself, but the generation on SS. They are the ones responsible.
No. They are the ones who are living on the promises that were made to them about what they would get in exchange for all the money that was taken out of their paychecks before they ever got to touch it. The people who made the promises are the ones who created the Ponzi scheme, the people who are getting SS benefits now are the victims of those lies.
Like I said, if you want to give all the people who have paid into SS their money back with interest, then fine. You want to tell those people they should get screwed because they trusted the government and the liberals who created the system, there is a problem.
You'd probably be up in arms if you had gone to K-Mart a year ago and put a nice new television on layaway, paying a little bit every month, only to be told "no TV for you, you leech upon society" when you made the last payment and expected to take the TV home. That's what you want to do to SS.
Demonizing the people stuck in the system for actually getting the benefits they were promised is just insulting and dishonest.
The lesson here is never work for a company unless you are independently wealthy and not actually dependent upon getting a paycheck from them on a timely basis.
The alternative lesson is don't give anyone direct access to your checking account so they can't try to take out money you don't have. And a third would be something along the lines of "don't count your chickens before they hatch".
I guess you missed class the day they talked about the use of "if" to create conditional clauses. "If you are paid at the end of the month" is a conditional statement that applies to all the rest of the words.
Now, you've helpfully pointed out that government employees don't appear to be paid at the end of the month. That means the conditional is false (not "wrong") and the rest isn't wrong, it just doesn't apply. But the part where I talked about being paid bi-weekly does. So, if the shutdown ends after a week, the next paycheck comes out just as it normally would.
The total number of these journals is perhaps the more relevant part of this article. There are 304 journals that are potential relevant places for that one submission? How can anyone keep up with the current science in any field when there are 304 places to look? Never mind that many of those aren't sufficiently vetting the product.
And if you are just writing them off and basing your reading on the "top ones", of what value are these?
While science journals are often used by researchers to find out what their colleagues are doing and can thus be vetted by the reader, they are quite often the bases for undergraduate and graduate educations, and putting deliberate crap in front of them is a Bad Thing.
It does if you want to give yourself a raise without having anyone be able to say "No, stop that."
Anyone today can say "no, stop that". The congress could tomorrow vote to rescind the automatic pay raises; that would be a meaningful "no, stop that". The amendment says nothing about automatic pay raises, nor does it make them necessary.
An honest congress could vote every so often to say "after the next election for each seat, the person holding that seat will receive a raise of X". That's allowed by the amendment. Thus, QED, automatic is not necessary.
What makes automatic pay raises necessary is not that amendment, but the political suicide that would accompany any vote to raise pay. Anyone who voted to raise their pay would have it used in the next election against them. As it stands, since the congressional leadership won't allow the a bill to rescind it, nobody can be blamed if they don't vote to cancel automatic raises when there was no vote held on the matter.
3) Shots were fired by the police. There is no evidence that she was even armed.
3) Shots were fired by police. She was armed with a several thousand pound car that she was using to assault the police and had already injured one.
Unfortunately, we can't prohibit cars, but we certainly can limit the size of the gas tank so that nobody can drive more than a few hundred feet before having to stop for more gas. This will obviously prevent anyone from having more than one gas tank, or otherwise modifying the one installed in the vehicle, but it will prevent honest citizens from ever being able to create a high-speed chase situation. Nobody needs more than 1000 feet worth of gas in their car at any one time.
No, you don't. You ignored the entire context of the statement "nothing different at all" in a rush to flame.
The entire context was that if you are paid at the end of the month and the shutdown lasts only a couple of weeks, you get paid as you normally do. It's only the 3rd of Oct. If you get paid on the 31st and the shutdown ends on the 20th, you get your paycheck on the 31st. Just as if the shutdown hadn't happened.
I honestly don't care about the pay stuff. The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe. That's fine.
The more they get paid, the easier they are to bribe. Money becomes less of a thought, they don't see the problem with getting a trivial sum from someone, it isn't helping them much.
But it also makes them easier to bribe because they get used to the pay and realize if they can curry favor with rich interests while they are in congress they can cash in later in life. "I'll glady vote your way today for $5000 up front and a promise of a no-show boardroom job in four years."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an anarchocapitalist!
No, if you were a true anarchocapitalist, you'd have written:
GOVERNMENT ...
And thank God /. has a "lameness" filter to stop lame jokes:
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Probably just an issue of vernacular: 'drone' rolls of the tongue much more readily than 'remote controlled quadcopter.'
But "toy" is even easier to roll off the tongue, and more appropriate when the devices they're calling "drones" are $50 (or even $500) toys.
Our local newscasters quite often instruct us to "log in to kgw.com for more information" on the story they just reported. Most of them know that you don't need to actually log in to access the information, but they're using the common vernacular that most people recognize.
I doubt there was a single /. reader who didn't immediately know what the phrase "video card" referred to.
fair price, and offer your product/service in convenient ways, people will buy rather than steal, for the most part.
This argument fails because it assumes you have the right to decide what someone else can charge for their efforts and that they must distribute it in a way that is acceptable to you.
Thus, you've already decided before the work is published that you have rights to control that work and that by the act of publishing it the author has abandoned his.
In other words:
As a result, HBO, who I would be willing to pay a fair amount to (even through a third party like netflix), refuses to provide what I desire and take my willingly offered money. And then they bemoan the fact that people steal from them. Boo fucking hoo.
You've decided what you want to pay for their service and if they don't accept your offer then you change your offer to zero and take what you want anyway.
You could always get as much health care as you could pay for.
Actually you can get as much health care as it takes to deal with your critical issues, whether you can pay for it or not. The sign in our local ER is clear: they cannot refuse to treat you because you don't have money.
Once you are out of the ER, that's when ability to pay is an issue.
Someone has to pay for all those subsidies and expanded health insurance coverage.
ACA is supposed to be for people who couldn't buy health insurance. Here is the story of a UCONN law student who was paying $39/month for health insurance who went to the ACA exchange looking for a cheaper plan. He found it: medicaid. He now pays nothing at all for his health insurance, the taxpayers are footing the entire bill. So, while he's paying $39 less a month, we're picking up the tab, and it costs us all more.
And this talks about higher costs for young people overall. So "pay less" is a very localized phenomenon.
I've seen other news stories that say the police officer "hit a barrier" with his own car.
The stories in today's paper report that she ran through a barrier leading to the White House, was temporarily stopped by the second set, and hit a Secret Service agent while she was backing out of that impediment. She then continued down the street towards the Capitol where she hit another cop.
This proves exactly my point about why /. is not the right place for this story. Everyone is saying what they think happened, it's all second hand from some other source, and much of it is incorrect. Why not just go to the sources directly? The only reason I can see for not doing that is if you want to be misinformed with as much conjecture and wild supposition as possible.
So what universal health care did you expect, and was this one significantly different?
Since ACA is not universal health care, it is mandatory health insurance, you've reached a point where no further debate is worth the time. Except to correct one deliberate incorrect statement on your part:
Ah yes, the age old, "If I can't think of a way to do it, it must be impossible."
YOU are the one who claimed that nobody could figure out a way of changing the system without leaving people destitute. I'm simply pointing out that you want the change while knowing that it can't be done without hurting people.
especially you, a troll
You've now been caught in a deliberate misquote, and I'm the troll. Ok.
False isn't wrong?
A conditional statement where the initial condition isn't met isn't wrong, the condition is "false". The statement as a whole is quite correct. If you get paid on the last day of the month and the shutdown ends on the 20th, you will see no difference in how you are getting paid. "If you get paid on the last day of the month" is neither right nor wrong since it makes no declarative statement about what the actual conditions are. For the statement to be wrong the rest of the sentence would have to be incorrect when the conditional part is true.
Perhaps a coding example would help?
If x isn't equal to five, the code is still absolutely correct.
WTF is wrong with you?
I went to school and learned how to read english. What's your excuse?
Wow. Glad to see the level of civil discourse in /. has not dropped considerably.
I never would have bought an Evanesance album had I not downloaded it for free and decided they were way too good not to support buy buying their alums.
On the opposite side of that coin, I will never buy a David Weber book because I was able to get two of them for free from his publisher (Baen) and learned I didn't like his work at all. That's after a couple of friends recommended him. (He seems to be really big on describing horrendous violence in gruesome detail.)
No, that's precisely what a limited liability company is designed to prevent.
So, I come up with a great idea for the next fad. Something like pet rocks. I mortgage my house, empty my savings, create an "LLC", spend it all on advertising and production, and the idea flops.
You're saying I can call someone and say "I failed, please give me all my money back" because I created an LLC? Or have I actually lost everything, just like the person you said was wrong claimed?
An LLC may protect you from some things, but it does not protect you against putting all your money into a company and then losing it all when it fails.
No. If the investment is bad, there is no means of production (since that is privately held), therefore the employee cannot get paid.
That company of mine that failed, the employees got paid for packaging up the product, and I wound up with nothing. Now, after my business folds they aren't getting paid, but neither are they spending their 8 hours a day packaging up gimcracks, they're free to find other employment. I'm still left without a house or savings.
Nobody said capitalism was designed to give people a job for life, just as it isn't guaranteed to return a profit on an investment, or even return the original investment. I risked my money, I deserve to get the profits if I was a success.
Oh, and I say this as someone who did start up a successful business by working in an office and saving up money.
Starting a successful company requires more than working in an office and saying up money. If you mean you got the capital to start one that way, ok, but then if you folded the company without paying your employees you aren't a success, you are scum. Not paying employees isn't an inherent feature of capitalism.
Note that running into a police car is not actually a good excuse for gunning down an unarmed woman.
You have admitted that she was in a car, which is a several thousand pound deadly weapon when used to run people down, and a high speed chase in Washington DC near the Capitol Building is a "get run down" moment waiting to happen for someone.
And, of course, she hadn't just run into a police car, she was continuing to flee. She was a continuing threat to everyone around her, including pedestrians and other drivers. The use of deadly force to stop someone who has used deadly force already and is continuing to do so is quite appropriate. This "unarmed woman" defense kind of ignores the entire situation.
The people voted for people who promised the ACA.
Somehow I knew you were going to say this. There's two (at least) problems with that statement. First, nobody knew what was in it until the congress voted for it. Remember the catchy slogan supporters came up with (or was it just Pelosi, or Reid?): you won't know what's in it until you vote for it. And even so, the congress critters did not go through a vote cycle with anything close to an ACA bill in the hopper so their constituents could know what they were voting on. In other words, nobody in the mass populace voted for the ACA and they aren't responsible for the mess it is making. Just as nobody in the mass populace voted for SS.
Second, there are an awful lot of Republicans who were elected on the premise that there wouldn't be an ACA no matter what it said. Thus, every Republican who voted to delay the ACA in the current continuing resolution is doing exactly what they were elected to do. Now, you seem to imply that doing what the electorate sent you to do is the right thing when it comes to congresspeople who voted for the black-box ACA, so pot, meet kettle.
It's, by definition, not a Ponzi if there are payouts to people who never paid in, right?
So when you fail to show that the current SS recipients are the people to blame for the existence of SS, switch to debating whether SS is a true Ponzi scheme or not. Yes, a scheme can be a Ponzi scheme for the vast majority of people who are forced to participate even if it is a simple handout for some who didn't pay in. But this doesn't change the fact that the blame for SS rests with the people who created it, and that's not the people who were forced to participate. You'll notice that Congress and the Prez are exempted from that, too.
That could be changed any time. SS could be "privatized" anytime. The problem is nobody could come up with any plan to privatize it, other than ones which would have a very high likelihood of leaving old people staving to death alone in slums.
You're simply fascinating. You claim it could be privatized anytime knowing that doing so would leave people destitute and starving. The destitute part is a pretty good reason why it can't be privatized. Most people with any care for others at all would say that. Where is you compassion, man?
The Republicans had the presidency and both houses in the '80s, right? But no fix then. The Democrats have had chances too since then, and neither did anything about it. That's proof neither wants to fix it. Broken is better.
You can't "fix it" in the way you want without leaving people who were forced to participate with the promise of support in their retirement years destitute, which is deliberately breaking a promise well after the money has been collected. I notice that you didn't pick up on the K-Mart analogy, so either you're ok with being denied the TV after you've paid for it or you're ignoring something that you can't answer.
Welfare/SS is the bribe to the poor to prevent a revolt while the 1% triples their holdings.
Now it's the lame old class envy argument. SS is the payout on the promise that the liberals made to everyone when they created the system. Bribe? Right. Everyone on SS is voting for FDR. Well, you know, there are a lot of people who see welfare as a bribe to vote for the people who want to keep handing out more money despite deficits and repeated debt ceiling increases. But for most people, it isn't a bribe, it is a promise kept for their participation in a Ponzi scheme.
By the way, the anxiety of the youth who are paying in is why it is a Ponzi. They're the next level of participation so the previous participants can get their payout. They want to bail out and leave Grandma eating dog food. Very compassionate.
so he didn't miss it, maybe he is doing this right now, but isn't telling
Perhaps this paper itself is the test, and Science failed while the others passed?
1. By reading specific articles that colleagues recommend.
Hmmm. So you know only what they know. Could work ok.
2. By using a search engine.
Search engines find words and phrases. They don't vet the material they return, nor do they usually return only what you are actually looking for. You've replaced the problem of finding relevant articles in the tables of contents of 304 journals with the problem of finding relevant articles in the 345,289 hits returned by Google.
And if you are going to just Google for the articles, why have 304 journals at all? Just put all the articles on the web and use Google to find them.
Injured cop did NOT get hit by woman, he ran into something else while chasing woman.
The Non-SlashDot-News-Network report I have seen says:
In other words, she ran into a police officer with the several thousand pound weapon she was driving. He was in the car so she didn't make direct contact, so technically I guess you are right: she ran into the car, he ran into the inside of his own car. What a pedantic twist. Congratulations.
SS as practiced by most places (other governments and private companies) isn't a Ponzi.
I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the US SS system and the people who are in the US drawing SS benefits.
Yes, the voters that are now collecting SS are the ones that did this.
No, the people who created the system did this. That would be FDR and the other liberals in congress. The people didn't vote for the SS system any more than they voted for ACA.
Not SS itself, but the generation on SS. They are the ones responsible.
No. They are the ones who are living on the promises that were made to them about what they would get in exchange for all the money that was taken out of their paychecks before they ever got to touch it. The people who made the promises are the ones who created the Ponzi scheme, the people who are getting SS benefits now are the victims of those lies. Like I said, if you want to give all the people who have paid into SS their money back with interest, then fine. You want to tell those people they should get screwed because they trusted the government and the liberals who created the system, there is a problem.
You'd probably be up in arms if you had gone to K-Mart a year ago and put a nice new television on layaway, paying a little bit every month, only to be told "no TV for you, you leech upon society" when you made the last payment and expected to take the TV home. That's what you want to do to SS.
Demonizing the people stuck in the system for actually getting the benefits they were promised is just insulting and dishonest.
The lesson here is never work for a company unless you are independently wealthy and not actually dependent upon getting a paycheck from them on a timely basis.
The alternative lesson is don't give anyone direct access to your checking account so they can't try to take out money you don't have. And a third would be something along the lines of "don't count your chickens before they hatch".
Yeah, you're wrong.
I guess you missed class the day they talked about the use of "if" to create conditional clauses. "If you are paid at the end of the month" is a conditional statement that applies to all the rest of the words.
Now, you've helpfully pointed out that government employees don't appear to be paid at the end of the month. That means the conditional is false (not "wrong") and the rest isn't wrong, it just doesn't apply. But the part where I talked about being paid bi-weekly does. So, if the shutdown ends after a week, the next paycheck comes out just as it normally would.
And if you are just writing them off and basing your reading on the "top ones", of what value are these?
While science journals are often used by researchers to find out what their colleagues are doing and can thus be vetted by the reader, they are quite often the bases for undergraduate and graduate educations, and putting deliberate crap in front of them is a Bad Thing.
It does if you want to give yourself a raise without having anyone be able to say "No, stop that."
Anyone today can say "no, stop that". The congress could tomorrow vote to rescind the automatic pay raises; that would be a meaningful "no, stop that". The amendment says nothing about automatic pay raises, nor does it make them necessary.
An honest congress could vote every so often to say "after the next election for each seat, the person holding that seat will receive a raise of X". That's allowed by the amendment. Thus, QED, automatic is not necessary.
What makes automatic pay raises necessary is not that amendment, but the political suicide that would accompany any vote to raise pay. Anyone who voted to raise their pay would have it used in the next election against them. As it stands, since the congressional leadership won't allow the a bill to rescind it, nobody can be blamed if they don't vote to cancel automatic raises when there was no vote held on the matter.
3) Shots were fired by the police. There is no evidence that she was even armed.
3) Shots were fired by police. She was armed with a several thousand pound car that she was using to assault the police and had already injured one.
Unfortunately, we can't prohibit cars, but we certainly can limit the size of the gas tank so that nobody can drive more than a few hundred feet before having to stop for more gas. This will obviously prevent anyone from having more than one gas tank, or otherwise modifying the one installed in the vehicle, but it will prevent honest citizens from ever being able to create a high-speed chase situation. Nobody needs more than 1000 feet worth of gas in their car at any one time.
You change your pay schedule. By weeks.
No, you don't. You ignored the entire context of the statement "nothing different at all" in a rush to flame.
The entire context was that if you are paid at the end of the month and the shutdown lasts only a couple of weeks, you get paid as you normally do. It's only the 3rd of Oct. If you get paid on the 31st and the shutdown ends on the 20th, you get your paycheck on the 31st. Just as if the shutdown hadn't happened.
I honestly don't care about the pay stuff. The more they get paid, the harder they are to bribe. That's fine.
The more they get paid, the easier they are to bribe. Money becomes less of a thought, they don't see the problem with getting a trivial sum from someone, it isn't helping them much.
But it also makes them easier to bribe because they get used to the pay and realize if they can curry favor with rich interests while they are in congress they can cash in later in life. "I'll glady vote your way today for $5000 up front and a promise of a no-show boardroom job in four years."
Well that's necessary because of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which states:
That amendment doesn't make automatic pay raises necessary.