Thank you for stating it much better than I can. I've never considered myself a "denier", and yet every time I ask someone to point to the evidence, I hear that slur tossed out. I've only briefly attempted to search for evidence online, and had virtually no success except to find things like the 97% consensus page at NASA's site. So, if anyone here has better sources, I'm all "ears".
SOmething like Game of Thrones is 4 to 1 male to female participation in rating game which is about as even as it gets on IMDB.
Just maybe, they're not interest in a show that has gratuitous topless women, and dragons flying around, and based purely on fantasy. That said, my wife actually likes it more than I do, but not for the same reasons.
Yeah, yeah, and all stereotypes are wrong too, huh? Yes, I'm aware that "all" women don't fit this mold, and I don't have any scientific evidence to point to that indicates a specific percentage. But then, I'm only agreeing with the GP based upon my anecdotal evidence of the several thousand I've ever met, including a few that were outliers.
So, just to be clear, is this what we all want? A resource colored with only the male viewpoint? Because if it's not, then maybe something should be done. But, if all we're interested in is input from basement boys, then let's just leave it all alone, and claim victory. End of argument.
Efforts to make the field attractive to students have largely been unsuccessful."
You would think they would know which efforts work and which don't. I'm only being a bit sarcastic with the Subject line, but seriously they should be able to figure out what does and doesn't work.
So, it's wrong to put the burden of proof upon the taxpayer as to what they owe?
Absolutely, if the government claims you owe money, they damn well better provide the documents. Your banks and employers send it all in every month. They are the ones who should do all the paperwork. That's one of the things my taxes should pay for. Internal Revenue Service, not litigators.
They do tell you how much you owe. But, if you wish to pay less, it's your responsibility to do so, not theirs. The bureaucracy is already too big, we don't need more of them to do your work. Yes, they have all the data you indicated. What they don't necessarily have is access to all the data and reasons you deserve deductions.
Now, I personally think we all pay too much, and get too little, but if you're one of those who think all taxes are evil, well I can't help you.
I'm not sure where you live, but that's incorrect here. States that tax groceries (rate if not fully taxed): Alabama, Arkansas (3%), Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois (1%), Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri (1.225%), Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee (5.5%), Utah (1.75%), Virginia (1.5% + 1% local option tax), and West Virginia (5%).
So, it's wrong to put the burden of proof upon the taxpayer as to what they owe? Don't get me wrong, I'm no IRS fan. But, how are they supposed to determine if you're a tax cheat, or if you've got a legitimate claim to owing nothing without you filing?
To a certain extent, citizens can using the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion http://www.irs.gov/Individuals.... You basically get a break on the first $97,600 of income...tax free.
Just my $.02, but this is the most insightful post here.
The definition of the word gamer in the summary is seriously lacking. There's a big difference between someone who spends fifteen minutes playing Solitaire, or Candy Crush, and someone else who's spending twenty hours a week raiding WoW. That said, for the companies who make the products, it's all about who they can pull the most Benjamins from.
And just back to the definition. I have a mother-in-law, so spends about 30min/week playing Solitare, and aunt who is on Simpsons Tapped Out every other day, and my mom who likes the occasional slot machine. All of these ladies are in their 60-70s, and I'd probably be frowned at if I were to tell them that they were "gamers".
If video is recoverable then the bricking process is defective.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that all you would need is one instance of them wiping video evidence to make it's way through the courts, for that practice to be banned...."Yes, your honor, several of us took video of these officers beating down that poor defenseless grandmother. Then one of them got on the radio, and we noticed that all of our phones went dead."
That's simply the difference between a criminal case, and a civil suit. The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case, it's much lower, only requiring a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm sure this is what you were referring to, but people are frequently unaware that there's a big difference.
I actually have mixed feelings there. The cities make tons of extra tax money simply because of the teams existence. But yeah, I'm not in favor of them funding new stadiums and such.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for stating it much better than I can. I've never considered myself a "denier", and yet every time I ask someone to point to the evidence, I hear that slur tossed out. I've only briefly attempted to search for evidence online, and had virtually no success except to find things like the 97% consensus page at NASA's site. So, if anyone here has better sources, I'm all "ears".
SOmething
like Game of Thrones is 4 to 1 male to female participation
in rating game which is about as even as it gets on IMDB.
Just maybe, they're not interest in a show that has gratuitous topless women, and dragons flying around, and based purely on fantasy. That said, my wife actually likes it more than I do, but not for the same reasons.
That was rather sexist of you to assume that it was a man.
Yeah, yeah, and all stereotypes are wrong too, huh? Yes, I'm aware that "all" women don't fit this mold, and I don't have any scientific evidence to point to that indicates a specific percentage. But then, I'm only agreeing with the GP based upon my anecdotal evidence of the several thousand I've ever met, including a few that were outliers.
So, just to be clear, is this what we all want? A resource colored with only the male viewpoint? Because if it's not, then maybe something should be done. But, if all we're interested in is input from basement boys, then let's just leave it all alone, and claim victory. End of argument.
Efforts to make the field attractive to students have largely been unsuccessful."
You would think they would know which efforts work and which don't. I'm only being a bit sarcastic with the Subject line, but seriously they should be able to figure out what does and doesn't work.
SQUIRREL!
Nice distraction from the actual point. Yes, you are correct, but it's not relevant to what he was saying.
Interesting, but even with that, if Wikipedia is correct, the accuracy of that isn't quite what you're claiming.
" CPGPS working to within 1% of perfect transition reduces this error to 3 centimeters (1.2 in) of ambiguity."
So, it's wrong to put the burden of proof upon the taxpayer as to what they owe?
Absolutely, if the government claims you owe money, they damn well better provide the documents. Your banks and employers send it all in every month. They are the ones who should do all the paperwork. That's one of the things my taxes should pay for. Internal Revenue Service, not litigators.
They do tell you how much you owe. But, if you wish to pay less, it's your responsibility to do so, not theirs. The bureaucracy is already too big, we don't need more of them to do your work. Yes, they have all the data you indicated. What they don't necessarily have is access to all the data and reasons you deserve deductions.
Now, I personally think we all pay too much, and get too little, but if you're one of those who think all taxes are evil, well I can't help you.
I'm not sure where you live, but that's incorrect here.
States that tax groceries (rate if not fully taxed): Alabama, Arkansas (3%), Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois (1%), Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri (1.225%), Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee (5.5%), Utah (1.75%), Virginia (1.5% + 1% local option tax), and West Virginia (5%).
So, it's wrong to put the burden of proof upon the taxpayer as to what they owe? Don't get me wrong, I'm no IRS fan. But, how are they supposed to determine if you're a tax cheat, or if you've got a legitimate claim to owing nothing without you filing?
Is there a point? If U.S. currency crashes, we'll all have larger issues. So, what?
To a certain extent, citizens can using the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion http://www.irs.gov/Individuals.... You basically get a break on the first $97,600 of income...tax free.
I'd like to know how this can be determined when GPS accuracy appears to be good only to about 3 meters.
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps...
Just my $.02, but this is the most insightful post here.
The definition of the word gamer in the summary is seriously lacking. There's a big difference between someone who spends fifteen minutes playing Solitaire, or Candy Crush, and someone else who's spending twenty hours a week raiding WoW. That said, for the companies who make the products, it's all about who they can pull the most Benjamins from.
And just back to the definition. I have a mother-in-law, so spends about 30min/week playing Solitare, and aunt who is on Simpsons Tapped Out every other day, and my mom who likes the occasional slot machine. All of these ladies are in their 60-70s, and I'd probably be frowned at if I were to tell them that they were "gamers".
HW Bush made Clean Air Act tougher and that reduced acid rain and smog at the time
Here's a thought: let's mod people up as long as they soundauthoritative...
That's how both Reagan, and Obama got elected.
That's okay, I don't respect Carl Sagan.
Since several posts have mentioned shutting down areas, I thought I'd bring this back up. Let's not let this shit happen again.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
As if everyone wouldn't immediately notice. Especially the media, who would have a feeding frenzy on it. Insightful?...my ass.
If video is recoverable then the bricking process is defective.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that all you would need is one instance of them wiping video evidence to make it's way through the courts, for that practice to be banned. ..."Yes, your honor, several of us took video of these officers beating down that poor defenseless grandmother. Then one of them got on the radio, and we noticed that all of our phones went dead."
That's simply the difference between a criminal case, and a civil suit. The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a civil case, it's much lower, only requiring a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm sure this is what you were referring to, but people are frequently unaware that there's a big difference.
You'd need to have a much larger court system to handle the load. There would likely be thousands of new cases in Missouri right now.
How difficult would it be for someone to force you to stick your finger on the sensor?
I actually have mixed feelings there. The cities make tons of extra tax money simply because of the teams existence. But yeah, I'm not in favor of them funding new stadiums and such.
You can be convicted, as Scott Peterson was, based only on circumstantial evidence.