If we fully admitted to it, then we would do something about it.
Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. We (depending on who is included in "we") fully admitted the genocide in Rwanda was happening, but didn't do much of anything about it.
they cannot refuse my payment and say they want payment in cashcows, and will refuse to accept my *legal tender* dollars.
I don't know where you're getting this idea (I suspect thin air / your ass). Businesses can and do refuse cash, every single day. I have never heard of any business getting in trouble for this practice - have you? If so, what business, and what happened?
They can refuse to provide change if the bill is $999 and I give them a $1000 bill, but they cannot say I didn't offer to pay.
And if you try to leave with merchandise, they can also detain you and call the police and tell them you tried to leave the store without paying. Until the transaction is complete, you haven't paid. Secondly, the merchant is under no obligation to provide change. If you offer to pay with a $1000 bill and they tell you they can take the bill but can't give change, your options are 1) pay $1000 for it, or 2) don't buy it. 3) leave with the item without paying for is not a (legal) option.
to refuse to accept said payment is to forgive the debt. Period.
How do you know? Is there a statute that says so? Is there a court judgment that says so? Because the Treasury Department doesn't say that, so we would need a higher authority than that to contradict them.
Just a minor point - I can usually just press the power button on my phone and see the temperature. No need to unlock it, and certainly no need to open an app.
So... they can say that they accept payments only in beans, pebbles or pine cones and nothing else? And that would be legal?
The organizing principle of US law is (supposed to be) that anything not specifically prohibited is allowed. So in the absence of any law requiring businesses to accept a particular form of payment, they can demand payment in any medium they choose. And there is no such law.
Physical US bills and coins are legal tender for state and federal governments.
"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." So you can pay your taxes with cash. I'm not sure exactly what public charges and dues refers to. That also means you can pay your mortgage with cash and the bank cannot refuse the payment (though it wouldn't surprise me if they tried).
"[Methane] is more than 100 times more potent at trapping energy than carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal contributor to man-made climate change. When considering its conversion to carbon dioxide over time its impact on an integrated weight basis is 84 times more potent after 20 years and 28 times more potent after 100 years."
It seems people who study this believe that methane is a significant factor in climate change, and livestock burpage is a significant factor in methane emissions.
But the plants took in carbon dioxide, and the cows are emitting methane, which is many times more potent than CO2. Have you seen any math that indicates there isn't a net effect?
Assuming those were ruled to be protected speech... that would only protect the speaker from being prevented from (or punished for) saying them. An individual is still responsible for their actions. Protected speech can run afoul of contract law, civil law (such as libel), copyright law, or any number of other obligations.
If you can be successfully sued for the speech, then in what way is it protected?
"Next, it must be determined if the speech in question is protected by the First Amendment. Certain kinds of speech have not been given constitutional protection. For example, states may allow damage suits against persons who have made slanderous or libelous statements..."
I doubt it. "More than competitors" and "more than necessary" are not the same after all. Perhaps for that company paying more than their competitors is necessary to maintain their competitive advantage. If you can show me a common practice of paying more than the lowest wage that would accomplish every business objective then I'll change my tune.
Slashdot Mirror
St. Louis and Denver are two others with light rail to the airport.
That gave me a chuckle, thanks.
Wow, are you always so rude, or just to strangers on the internet?
If we fully admitted to it, then we would do something about it.
Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy. We (depending on who is included in "we") fully admitted the genocide in Rwanda was happening, but didn't do much of anything about it.
They make much of (supposedly) a quarter of Republicans "willing to state" that Obama was born in the U.S. (citation needed).
However in the meantime 100% of Democrats seem to STILL think Trump has some kind of magical tie to Russia
No citation needed for that one though?
Huh, what difference could possibly explain the different reactions? I just can't think of anything...
Sure took him a long time to spit out that forged document. If it was legit, it would have been immediately released.
Is that how you know it's forged, or is there some other way you've been able to discern this?
Oh, oops... I thought that would link to the trademark listing page. Well sounds like you got the idea.
they cannot refuse my payment and say they want payment in cashcows, and will refuse to accept my *legal tender* dollars.
I don't know where you're getting this idea (I suspect thin air / your ass). Businesses can and do refuse cash, every single day. I have never heard of any business getting in trouble for this practice - have you? If so, what business, and what happened?
They can refuse to provide change if the bill is $999 and I give them a $1000 bill, but they cannot say I didn't offer to pay.
And if you try to leave with merchandise, they can also detain you and call the police and tell them you tried to leave the store without paying. Until the transaction is complete, you haven't paid. Secondly, the merchant is under no obligation to provide change. If you offer to pay with a $1000 bill and they tell you they can take the bill but can't give change, your options are 1) pay $1000 for it, or 2) don't buy it. 3) leave with the item without paying for is not a (legal) option.
to refuse to accept said payment is to forgive the debt. Period.
How do you know? Is there a statute that says so? Is there a court judgment that says so? Because the Treasury Department doesn't say that, so we would need a higher authority than that to contradict them.
Just a minor point - I can usually just press the power button on my phone and see the temperature. No need to unlock it, and certainly no need to open an app.
So ... they can say that they accept payments only in beans, pebbles or pine cones and nothing else? And that would be legal?
The organizing principle of US law is (supposed to be) that anything not specifically prohibited is allowed. So in the absence of any law requiring businesses to accept a particular form of payment, they can demand payment in any medium they choose. And there is no such law.
Physical US bills and coins are legal tender for state and federal governments.
"United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." So you can pay your taxes with cash. I'm not sure exactly what public charges and dues refers to. That also means you can pay your mortgage with cash and the bank cannot refuse the payment (though it wouldn't surprise me if they tried).
Given the carbon circulation in the environment a a whole, cow burps are lost in the noise.
"The [livestock] sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane... most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants."
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...
"[Methane] is more than 100 times more potent at trapping energy than carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal contributor to man-made climate change. When considering its conversion to carbon dioxide over time its impact on an integrated weight basis is 84 times more potent after 20 years and 28 times more potent after 100 years."
https://www.edf.org/climate-im...
"About 25%of the manmade global warming we’re experiencing today is caused by methane emissions (EDF calculation based on IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 8)."
https://www.edf.org/methane-ot...
It seems people who study this believe that methane is a significant factor in climate change, and livestock burpage is a significant factor in methane emissions.
But the plants took in carbon dioxide, and the cows are emitting methane, which is many times more potent than CO2. Have you seen any math that indicates there isn't a net effect?
Cats eat birds whole, therefore we should eat more parts of the animal too? I think your argument is a bit flawed there.
How do you figure that?
There should be an international treaty that would immediately execute on a spot any scientist or non-scientist who entertains such a barbarian ideas.
Because that's what Jesus would do?
It only has to be "proven" by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it's more likely than not.
Assuming those were ruled to be protected speech... that would only protect the speaker from being prevented from (or punished for) saying them. An individual is still responsible for their actions. Protected speech can run afoul of contract law, civil law (such as libel), copyright law, or any number of other obligations.
If you can be successfully sued for the speech, then in what way is it protected?
"Next, it must be determined if the speech in question is protected by the First Amendment. Certain kinds of speech have not been given constitutional protection. For example, states may allow damage suits against persons who have made slanderous or libelous statements..."
https://home.ubalt.edu/shapiro...
Maybe you mean something else by "protected speech"?
To target YouTube Red, they should trademark RedTube
Too late.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...
I'm not arguing against nuclear power, I was just answering the question of what waste products are dangerous for thousands of years.
I doubt it. "More than competitors" and "more than necessary" are not the same after all. Perhaps for that company paying more than their competitors is necessary to maintain their competitive advantage. If you can show me a common practice of paying more than the lowest wage that would accomplish every business objective then I'll change my tune.
You would have to be out of your mind to get one of these alerts and go try to assist the officer.
Just put it at the top of the particle fountain.