First, I haven't seen any real change in journalists for decades. They've always been like this. The difference nowadays is that there's many other sources so you can check up on them.
Second, reputable journalists very rarely say anything incorrect on strictly factual matters. This means you have to learn to read for the facts. The headline may well be misleading, and any expressions of opinion are suspect, and reports of people's opinions may well be picked to suit the journalist, and relevant facts may be omitted, but you can normally trust what is actually said rather than implied. This is not true of many alleged news sources.
Third, while opposing news sources are useful, that doesn't mean that the truth lies in the middle. Sometimes one news source will get it right, and another won't. It's possible that two normally opposing news sources are shading what they're reporting on in the same direction.
There are two types of holidays: those like Christmas that every non-essential employee gets off, and those like Labor Day that are big shopping days, so retail employees work overtime. There's also the issue of vital services. The garbage collectors in my city work five days a week. If there's a city holiday, they're off that way and work Saturdays for double their normal pay.
I believe it's standard for banks to require their employees to take a two-week vacation each year, and not allow them to have anything to do with work in that time. The reason is that it's more expensive to have someone embezzling from the bank, and it's hard to set up an embezzling scheme that will stand up to an annual inspection while the employee isn't around to manage it for two weeks.
If sick leave didn't accrue, what was he supposed to do for a five-week absence? Sick leave that doesn't accrue means that people drag themselves in and infect everyone in January, and take off with a mild cold in December. If you can accrue it, it turns into a decent short-term disability plan, and most people will take it as needed and not more than that.
Breakdowns are unplanned, and you don't know how frequently they'll happen. Employee vacation time is planned and known to happen. Moreover, a spare employee is usually employed. My team has to keep enough coverage in case something goes wrong with our software, which is typically two people, but when more people are here we get more development done. Technically, you could call the rest of us "spares", but we're productive spares. On the other hand, when we temporarily had three cars and two drivers in the family, there was always a third car doing nothing (although it came in useful the time I bashed my rear end).
We're talking about liability in the accounting sense, which is a rather specialized use of the word. In double-entry accounting, the sum of the assets must equal the sum of the liabilities, which means that profit is a liability. It has to be for the books to balance.
Pensions are money the company will have to pay out later, so it makes sense that they're liabilities. PTO isn't money the company has to pay out later, since my pay remains the same whether I take no PTO or a months' worth. The difference is the amount of time I'm at work, not my pay.
It can be a liability if the company is required to pay me for unused PTO when I leave, since that's money the company has to pay to someone who's no longer an employee.
If you're really serious about security, having any significant time in which someone else has access to your laptop not in your presence destroys the usefulness of the laptop to you, so you may as well give it away or sell it and buy a new one.
Pu-239 is an unpleasant thing to work with, but it isn't that horrible. The radioactivity isn't that bad, and the potential of chemical poisoning goes down with dilution. There's likely other things as unpleasant in the launch.
The Earth is pretty big, and a few plutonium warheads aren't going to have a significant effect.
What's wrong with it? There are treaties against detonating nukes, but if you don't put nukes on the missile and don't fire it where it will hurt anyone, who cares?
There are two problems with stomping on North Korea. One is China, who wants to keep N.K. as a buffer state. One is Seoul, the capital of South Korea, which is under North Korean guns, and which would take absolutely horrifying civilian casualties and damage if the artillery starts firing.
MAD is for larger nuclear powers. For smaller ones, "We'll squish you like a radioactive bug" tends to work. We can't build a ICBM shield that will stop a major nuclear power (even stopping 90% of incoming Russian nukes isn't nearly enough), but if we can stop a lot of North Korean or Indonesian or whatever nuclear missiles that's a Good Thing.
Most smart nations know what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the US. Most nations that can afford to have multiple missiles on the same path are smart. We don't have to defend against Russian nukes, since they aren't going to attack us that way.
Don't be surprised if Kim jacks off to crush videos.
With all those beautiful and skillful young North Korean women who'd do anything out of selfless love for the Supreme Leader? Besides, his semen is sure to have wonderful medical effects. Ask any North Korean when someone else might be listening.
According to Wikipedia, the A-10 service ceiling is about 45,000 feet. I'm not sure where you're getting your cite from.
Airships are limited in altitude by the expansion ability of their gasbags, since as the air gets thinner the cells give less lift if they can't expand. Late WWI German Zeppelins could get up to about 20,0000 feet. Presumably we could do better today, but there's going to be limits.
Got a reference to Zeppelins with biplanes? I didn't find one in a quick look.
Objective evidence can be hard to come by in cases like this. There have been illegal attacks on protesters, and there's evidence of that, in addition to what my friends tell me.
In the real world, I hold stock in these companies for reasons other than political expression, and I don't know of comparable investments that aren't going to contribute my money for causes I disagree with.
I believe there are several sorts of "non-profit" corporations. I give money to political advocacy groups that are at least not de facto for profit corporations, but I can't deduct the contributions on my taxes because they're political. This is fine, even when they disagree with me.
Media are a more complicated legal problem, since they typically come with editorial sections and we don't want to hurt that, and we don't want to hinder them from actual reporting. However, I believe there are laws on what does and does not count as a political contribution (free advertising does), and we could use those as guidelines.
Looks to me like private charity can work well in relatively small and homogenous communities, but tends to fail with larger and more diverse communities, so government intervention is needed.
A lot of the urban vs. rural conflict seems to me to be people seeing solutions that work in their own communities and assuming they apply universally. Cities need government assistance much more than small rural towns. People living in the countryside need guns more than city dwellers.
How irregular are they? According to the Hague Convention, if a country is invaded and the local army hasn't shown up yet, people who resist the invaders, carry arms openly, and fight reasonably cleanly must be treated as prisoners of war, if captured. Protection of other people is rather limited, but I don't think it's legal to round up people you think might be combatants and throw them into prison.
It's legal because TigerSwan was not operating on behalf of the government.
News flash: private parties can commit illegal acts. TFS says the company was operating without a valid license, so obviously they were breaking the law. There were a lot of illegal and immoral actions against the water protectors, although I don't know what was done by police and what was done by private security.
I own stock in several companies, which have overall purposes of making and selling stuff. I'm cool with that. However, they make political contributions of corporate money to causes I disagree with, and as a stockholder it feels like they're using my money against me.
Now, the people who run these companies probably have some serious political disagreements with me, and they have a right to use their money on political donations. No question about that. I question the morality of using corporate funds.
Obviously, we need to have legal organizations to coordinate people's political actions and do such things as buy political advertising and do research and provide lobbyists. These can be funded by people who like those organizations, rather than those who just wanted to invest some money wisely.
So, I'd favor very tight restrictions on the ability of for-profit corporations to operate politically.
There are illegal actions that will not result in convictions for various reasons. Among those are refusal to prosecute, insufficient evidence, and sympathetic judges and juries. Speeding to the hospital is illegal and frequently dangerous. Breaking into houses is criminal, but in practice there will be no prosecution unless the homeowner wants it. People who took marijuana for the best of reasons have wound up behind bars, because it's illegal.
Illegal actions can be extremely praiseworthy, but they're still illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I haven't seen any real change in journalists for decades. They've always been like this. The difference nowadays is that there's many other sources so you can check up on them.
Second, reputable journalists very rarely say anything incorrect on strictly factual matters. This means you have to learn to read for the facts. The headline may well be misleading, and any expressions of opinion are suspect, and reports of people's opinions may well be picked to suit the journalist, and relevant facts may be omitted, but you can normally trust what is actually said rather than implied. This is not true of many alleged news sources.
Third, while opposing news sources are useful, that doesn't mean that the truth lies in the middle. Sometimes one news source will get it right, and another won't. It's possible that two normally opposing news sources are shading what they're reporting on in the same direction.
There are two types of holidays: those like Christmas that every non-essential employee gets off, and those like Labor Day that are big shopping days, so retail employees work overtime. There's also the issue of vital services. The garbage collectors in my city work five days a week. If there's a city holiday, they're off that way and work Saturdays for double their normal pay.
I believe it's standard for banks to require their employees to take a two-week vacation each year, and not allow them to have anything to do with work in that time. The reason is that it's more expensive to have someone embezzling from the bank, and it's hard to set up an embezzling scheme that will stand up to an annual inspection while the employee isn't around to manage it for two weeks.
If sick leave didn't accrue, what was he supposed to do for a five-week absence? Sick leave that doesn't accrue means that people drag themselves in and infect everyone in January, and take off with a mild cold in December. If you can accrue it, it turns into a decent short-term disability plan, and most people will take it as needed and not more than that.
Breakdowns are unplanned, and you don't know how frequently they'll happen. Employee vacation time is planned and known to happen. Moreover, a spare employee is usually employed. My team has to keep enough coverage in case something goes wrong with our software, which is typically two people, but when more people are here we get more development done. Technically, you could call the rest of us "spares", but we're productive spares. On the other hand, when we temporarily had three cars and two drivers in the family, there was always a third car doing nothing (although it came in useful the time I bashed my rear end).
We're talking about liability in the accounting sense, which is a rather specialized use of the word. In double-entry accounting, the sum of the assets must equal the sum of the liabilities, which means that profit is a liability. It has to be for the books to balance.
Pensions are money the company will have to pay out later, so it makes sense that they're liabilities. PTO isn't money the company has to pay out later, since my pay remains the same whether I take no PTO or a months' worth. The difference is the amount of time I'm at work, not my pay.
It can be a liability if the company is required to pay me for unused PTO when I leave, since that's money the company has to pay to someone who's no longer an employee.
At my company, we are told that our time off is supposed to be time off, so don't spend any time on work.
Secure Boot is supposed to guarantee that the OS is trustworthy, which can be a Good Thing depending on who is supposed to trust it.
If you're really serious about security, having any significant time in which someone else has access to your laptop not in your presence destroys the usefulness of the laptop to you, so you may as well give it away or sell it and buy a new one.
Pu-239 is an unpleasant thing to work with, but it isn't that horrible. The radioactivity isn't that bad, and the potential of chemical poisoning goes down with dilution. There's likely other things as unpleasant in the launch.
The Earth is pretty big, and a few plutonium warheads aren't going to have a significant effect.
What's wrong with it? There are treaties against detonating nukes, but if you don't put nukes on the missile and don't fire it where it will hurt anyone, who cares?
There are two problems with stomping on North Korea. One is China, who wants to keep N.K. as a buffer state. One is Seoul, the capital of South Korea, which is under North Korean guns, and which would take absolutely horrifying civilian casualties and damage if the artillery starts firing.
MAD is for larger nuclear powers. For smaller ones, "We'll squish you like a radioactive bug" tends to work. We can't build a ICBM shield that will stop a major nuclear power (even stopping 90% of incoming Russian nukes isn't nearly enough), but if we can stop a lot of North Korean or Indonesian or whatever nuclear missiles that's a Good Thing.
Most smart nations know what would happen if they launched a nuclear attack on the US. Most nations that can afford to have multiple missiles on the same path are smart. We don't have to defend against Russian nukes, since they aren't going to attack us that way.
With all those beautiful and skillful young North Korean women who'd do anything out of selfless love for the Supreme Leader? Besides, his semen is sure to have wonderful medical effects. Ask any North Korean when someone else might be listening.
According to Wikipedia, the A-10 service ceiling is about 45,000 feet. I'm not sure where you're getting your cite from.
Airships are limited in altitude by the expansion ability of their gasbags, since as the air gets thinner the cells give less lift if they can't expand. Late WWI German Zeppelins could get up to about 20,0000 feet. Presumably we could do better today, but there's going to be limits.
Got a reference to Zeppelins with biplanes? I didn't find one in a quick look.
Objective evidence can be hard to come by in cases like this. There have been illegal attacks on protesters, and there's evidence of that, in addition to what my friends tell me.
In the real world, I hold stock in these companies for reasons other than political expression, and I don't know of comparable investments that aren't going to contribute my money for causes I disagree with.
I believe there are several sorts of "non-profit" corporations. I give money to political advocacy groups that are at least not de facto for profit corporations, but I can't deduct the contributions on my taxes because they're political. This is fine, even when they disagree with me.
Media are a more complicated legal problem, since they typically come with editorial sections and we don't want to hurt that, and we don't want to hinder them from actual reporting. However, I believe there are laws on what does and does not count as a political contribution (free advertising does), and we could use those as guidelines.
Looks to me like private charity can work well in relatively small and homogenous communities, but tends to fail with larger and more diverse communities, so government intervention is needed.
A lot of the urban vs. rural conflict seems to me to be people seeing solutions that work in their own communities and assuming they apply universally. Cities need government assistance much more than small rural towns. People living in the countryside need guns more than city dwellers.
How irregular are they? According to the Hague Convention, if a country is invaded and the local army hasn't shown up yet, people who resist the invaders, carry arms openly, and fight reasonably cleanly must be treated as prisoners of war, if captured. Protection of other people is rather limited, but I don't think it's legal to round up people you think might be combatants and throw them into prison.
News flash: private parties can commit illegal acts. TFS says the company was operating without a valid license, so obviously they were breaking the law. There were a lot of illegal and immoral actions against the water protectors, although I don't know what was done by police and what was done by private security.
I own stock in several companies, which have overall purposes of making and selling stuff. I'm cool with that. However, they make political contributions of corporate money to causes I disagree with, and as a stockholder it feels like they're using my money against me.
Now, the people who run these companies probably have some serious political disagreements with me, and they have a right to use their money on political donations. No question about that. I question the morality of using corporate funds.
Obviously, we need to have legal organizations to coordinate people's political actions and do such things as buy political advertising and do research and provide lobbyists. These can be funded by people who like those organizations, rather than those who just wanted to invest some money wisely.
So, I'd favor very tight restrictions on the ability of for-profit corporations to operate politically.
There are illegal actions that will not result in convictions for various reasons. Among those are refusal to prosecute, insufficient evidence, and sympathetic judges and juries. Speeding to the hospital is illegal and frequently dangerous. Breaking into houses is criminal, but in practice there will be no prosecution unless the homeowner wants it. People who took marijuana for the best of reasons have wound up behind bars, because it's illegal.
Illegal actions can be extremely praiseworthy, but they're still illegal.