While I don't disagree with your statement, I just don't think it is right for a cop to stop someone because they weren't sure.
It seems to me that the cop should need some sort of positive notice or that they need to be sure you broke some law or ordinance in order for the police to use their police powers and detain you. Otherwise, they could be pulling you over in hopes that you did something wrong which is problematic with the entire constitutional rights thing and all.
So why I know what you say happens (I've always had long hair and was often pulled over because of it or because I was wearing a metal band t-shirt and the cops thought I was a druggie), I simply cannot see how even in a liberal version of a living document or a strict interpretation of the federal and even some state constitution, that this crap is allowed to happen. Just last summer, I saw a friends van pulled over and being searched. I called him because it seemed as if his kids were driving it (they are old enough). He came down and found out the cop never asked to search the van, just hand cuffed the kids (15 and 16) after pulling them over and started searching. When asked why he pulled them over, the cop claimed they made a left turn without signalling but there were no left turns on the route they were coming from and the kids said they never made a left. So the cop obviously made something up and thought because they were young he could get away with it. and outside of a couple question from my friend, he did.
Yes.. In short, you would have to be dumb or crazy to go up against something so stacked against you on the hopes that 12 people might see things your way instead of the way the media has fed society for the 5 months leading up to your day in court.
Unless you have a good lawyer who is saying we got this beat, you are dumb or crazy to go against those odds no matter how innocent you are.
Umm.. who was that and why didn't he get a fair trial complete with all the appeals and all every other criminal on death row gets?
Or are you simply embellishing the story a bit and those details will make it difficult to hold your statement to light?
I'm assuming you are talking about G.W. Bush. Here is another misdirected claim against him. People say he is racists because he didn't support hate crime legislation that was brought up after the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas. However, the fact of the matter was that Bush supported giving those responsible the death penalty which is somewhat already the most severe form of punishment our judicial system allows. He saw a hate crime spec as redundant and actual enforcement of existing law as the answer.
I mean why would someone have a pair of gloves that didn't fit, spend the time and effort to put them on, then go kill someone and lose a glove in order for the cops to find and claim they were yours.
Actually, I know why but on a jury cooped up in a hotel who didn't have access to the internet, hindsight of every arm chair quarterback picking over the case with information not introduced in court, and all, it simply didn't make sense.
A jury in principle can ensure right from wrong. But the reality is that no one would ever consider what a jury might do in the months leading up to your trial when the prosecutor and the mom with a bug up her butt drags your name through the press as the perv and pedophile this law would claim you are.
So yes, a jury should be a save, but the cost of that save could be impassible. Imagine if you were a school teacher who took a pic of his girlfriend at the beech, you job would be almost lost and you would have to endure all sorts of humiliation and harassment just so a jury can say it isn't so. In the UK, after a series of reports on the news about pedophiles, I guess some locals torched a pediatrics office thinking they treated pedophiles. There is also a claim about a mob chasing a podiatrist thinking she was a pedophile or something.
The only other time I have ever heard that word was when flipping through the channels on afternoon and Oprah was on talking about someone's Vageejay.
Sadly, just when I thought it might be a new Howard Stern type format for her show, I was wrong. Fortunately, she was taken off the air after being arrested at the airport. I guess someone lifted up her skirt and they found 150 pounds of crack.
No, the deal, according to the audit report was for NASA fuel rates for NASA missions and regular fuel rates for other flights not concerning or connected to the government. The audit found that a mistake or misunderstanding by the provider of the fuel caused all the fuel to be at NASA's rate.
And according to the audit, NASA always paid for some flights, they just had something along the order of over 200 flights at no cost to them also. The deal they had was actually fair for both parties in many respects and h211 or google depending on how you look at them, actually went above and beyond the deal some 200+ times.
Does the association to google make you cry or something? Are you afraid it will somehow lead to more graft or something when people notice the connection to other shell companies that google benefits from??
So I guess the question might be is who cares? Obviously not you- or you don't care enough to put a name close to your post so the dog can chase the rabbit down the hole. So you car just enough to mention something but not enough to be associated with that mentioning which makes me wonder why you even bothered.
I think they count as state employees but the school pays a fee or their costs or something. It's less then the rentacop fees you or I would have to pay if we wanted a cop to work security on the late shift or a special event or something. In my area, you can hire off duty cops to do security at just about anything as long as it is legal.
But I think it would/should depend a lot on how big the school is and if the campus is open to the public or not. If it is a walled garden, I have a problem too. But if it is a private school as in no state/federal funding and they pick and choose students but open for the public to use amenities like the library or meeting halls and so on, I don't see an issue. Well, as long as the university cops aren't enforcing school rules- which they shouldn't be doing in either case as a law is passed by legislature not some board. I don't know of any private school that is as large as a state university though. Most of them are likely smaller and more specialized I would assume.
There are a lot of unique things that happen at a school and there is a rather large population density that grows and shrinks periodically. If they didn't get their own force, the city would likely have to step up and provide it. If they are getting a lot of calls or showing up a lot, it just makes sense. And the force could be more specialized to deal with issues surrounding school life. I mean someone gets stopped and reaches in his pocket to grab a phone in order to record the stop. In the real world, so many cops might think they are going for a weapon and shoot where a cop at a school might know what they are up to.
Well, from the article summery anyways, the bank is allowed to collect and keep personal information and the charity not only was not supposed to do so, failed to implement any auditing to ensure they were in compliance with the laws concerning personal information.
I think that right there, failing to even bother checking to see if they were in compliance, is what might have drove the fine up.
There is already precedence for this and it is somewhat simple to follow. Almost every college campus has it's own cops that are stationed on campus for the sole benefit of the campus and the college pays for the costs (some campuses have their own police force with the same powers as regular cops by law). Most medical centers of decent size and emergency room/hospitals have the same. The local hospital here has 5 officers working it (covering 3 shifts) and it is actually 4 or 5 blocks from the main police department.
What happens is that they patrol primarily the area they are in charge of- be it a college campus of hospital or whatever. They go on assists when needed (even off campus), will follow a fleeing suspect off campus if necessary, and so on. If a call comes in to 9/11, unless it is an assist (meaning something that requires a large police presence or everyone else is occupied), they won't go unless the call came from their area.
Think of it like a substation or precinct but on a smaller scale. The cop is a cop city wide, but they have their territory they stay in unless needed elsewhere for some reason.
It doesn't appear to be. It seems that it is a complete misunderstanding by the fuel company. From the audit,
"We found that a misunderstanding between Ames and DLA-Energy personnel rather than intentional misconduct led to H211 enjoying the discounted fuel rate for flights that had no NASA-related mission. From September 2007 until August 2013, H211 purchased fuel at Moffett from DLA-Energy either directly or through NASA for both its personal (non-NASA related) flights and NASA science flights at a rate intended only for government agencies and their contractors. Even though Ames officials accurately reported to DLA-Energy the nature of the Centerâ(TM)s agreement with H211, DLA-Energy misunderstood that H211 was drawing fuel for both private and NASA-related missions."
The audit also says that the h211 company has flown over 200 missions for NASA at no cost to NASA and as a result of the misunderstanding, H211 paid between 3.3 and 5.3 million less than market rate for fuel in the time frame because of it. It's a pretty interesting read once you start into it.
The fuel wasn't surplus. But the problem was altogether different.
An audit was conducted concerning Google's aircraft being stored that the ames facility. It turns out that they lease a hangar from NASA as market rates but also allow their aircraft to be used by NASA for Earth Science projects.
In the course of this, the supplier of fuel for the site charges a market rate for everyone but NASA who gets charged a cost plus rate. NASA had them fueling the aircraft (which is more then just their jet) on the cost plus rate for the NASA projects but an oversight happened and they ended up being charged cost plus for everything including private non-government flights. The audit doesn't place blame or malice in it and writes it off as a misunderstanding. The letter in the article is confirmation that NASA was doing it, didn't have anything in place to detect it, cannot go back and fix it, but have that all taken care of now and the separate rates will be applied appropriately.
It's deeper then that. The fuel at costs was supposed to be only for fuel used on the NASA missions the planes do. All the fuel for private flights were supposed to be purchased under a different account for market rates.
This letter is in response to an internal audit that disclosed all the fuel was being purchased at costs instead of separating them like they were supposed to be.
Correction, it appears that NASA was using their planes for "earth science" projects and was authorized to sell the fuel for the government work. What happened is that for some reason, all the fuel for the planes were purchased using this government discount so fuel for private flights not related to the government was purchased at the discounts.
Its a little deeper then this. This letter is confirmation on an audit by some inspector. NASA leases several of the google jets for earth science related tasks and NASA was only allowed to sell them fuel to the extent of covering those missions.
What ended up happening is that H2 11 purchased fuel for private flights under the same account that had nothing to do with NASA or the government so the selling of that fuel was against the contract (possible law too). So the audit came out, someone asked about it, NASA confirmed it and said they didn't have any way to address it previously but do now.
Now I didn't read the audit enough to see whether or not anyone explicitly made it clear that only fuel used for government services could be purchased under the contract. I'm going to assume it was an oversight or misunderstanding and the proper accounts weren't changed over when fueling. Pilots probably don't give one rats ass about the cost of fuel for someone else's aircraft they have to fly. They certainly wouldn't be privileged to the contracts NASA and H2 11 were part of and likely just gave the account name or number or charge card they were given for the government usages. I used to work for a company that operated heavy equipment and off road use fuel was tax free also. We had two fuel cards for when they were on site, one for the trucks and one for the equipment to keep tax credits separate and drivers often used the same card for everything. When asked why they thought they had a second fuel card for, they said in case they needed to get fuel at a stop the first one wasn't accepted at. Either management lacked something, the drivers and operators lacked something, or the fact that they could fuel the equipment in the yard and rarely needed to get more on site (outside what was brought with them), allowed them to forget what they were told once a long time ago.
My guess would be that it was just there and they needed fuel one day. When H2-11 discovered how much cheaper it was, they probably needed fuel quite often. It's not uncommon for airports to supply fuel services for crafts not controlled explicitly for them.
As the article you linked to spells out, Palin was asked what insight being close to Russia gives her about Russian actions in Georgia and she basically avoids the question by saying you can see Russia from parts of Alaska. Whether it is her back yard or somewhere else in Alaska she still had no insight to offer.
It takes a clueless person to not see the insight in noticing that when Russia invades it's neighboring country, then it says you should watch for Russia invading it's neighboring countries- which happens to be the US via Alaska when talking about national security. What insights into US national security would Russia invading a neighboring country give you other than we need to watch our border with Russia? and yes, you can essentially say we have a border with Russia and we patrolled it pretty heavily during the cold war.
When Gibson calls her out on her non-answer, she just goes into a diatribe about regan, not repeating the cold war and "can't we all just get along." But she STILL HAS NOTHING MEANINGFUL TO SAY. So the parody is really just a summarization of the meaning of her response because a couple of sentences of blather isn't as funny. But the meaning is unchanged.
Now I know why you posted AC. Can you see Russia from your bedroom window?
Sorry it took so long to get back, work took me out of town for a bit.
If that is correct then all of the current outrage at Russias action in Crimea is equally superfluous...
No, you can still be outraged over the actions of another country.You do not have to accept anything you do not like. The Geneva convention has some provisions in it describing when it is legitimate to go to war but the UN doesn't give or rescind permission making it legal and illegal.
That is where you are wrong, the original 1991 Gulf War was a UN authorised action - see UNSC Resolution 678, which authorised member states
No, I'm not wrong. You simply got lost somewhere. A resolution autorizing an action or broad set of actions does not in any way constitute the UN giving orders. It is saying we will not object. Korea on the other hand was a UN action and they gave specific orders like take this area or launch this offensive. Granted, the specifics on how that happened was left to the generals in charge but the UN took a direct part in coordination and orchestrating it.
While the UN are not the government of the world, they uphold international treaties which member states have agreed to, which include the recognition of the sovereignty of member states and the right for a countries government to govern. Multiple independent western courts have affirmed that military action with the aim of regime change is illegal under international law.
Again, no. First, there are multiple bodies that deal with treaties. Some of them are under the UN control but most of them are not. I think WIPO has the most active treaties at the moment. But Russia as part of UN charter, has a permanent seat with Veto power at the UN. That means they cannot be booted (neither can the US, France, UK, or China) for any reason and they retain veto power over any actions the UN might try including security resolutions and sanctions. Now UN charter does say stuff in chapter 1 article 2 that makes an invasion for regime change illegal under UN charter but there are no penalties for it. Nothing is prescribed by charter or treaty concerning it. It's no different then your mom telling me to go to my room and me telling her to kiss off. The UN could vote on allowing other countries to address the problem or even take military action themselves like with Korea but with Russia's veto, nothing can be done.
But it gets even worse for your case. Any court can claim anything is illegal, it's a matter of jurisdiction and enforcement. I just held a kangaro court that said you posting was illegal and a violation under international law. Of course they also didn't say there was any penalties and even if there was, they do not have jurisdiction or the ability to enforce any of them. About all they can do is get outraged and have someone claim that outrage is superfluous.
And to make it even more obnoxious, Russia didn't invade Crimea, they went to the assistance of the sitting leader who was unconstitutionally and illegally deposed by a mob of people using force and the threat of force. So forget about what you think you know and watch the spin. Russia said the Viktor Yanukovych is still the only valid president and blames the uprising on influences from the west. "People are being persecuted for language and political reasons.". So not only is Russia helping the legitimate elected president who was unconstitutionally removed from under the threat of violence, they are the humanitarians in the mix. All of that seems to be completely in line with UN charter and international law and it seems to provide valid excuses for all the so called violations in the process. Interestingly, the talking heads in the west want to ingore and dismiss that without mention.
That is the accepted principle whether you want to believe it or not. But I guess arguing with an AC is pointless. I mean the bible itself tells a different story as early as genesis and cane and able.
No, that would be misprison of a felony. What it means is that if your security camera picked up someone being raped and killed, i can link to the footage if it became availible somehow. There might be harrasment if i did though
This is just plain wrong. Obviously so. The Set {A,B} is part of {{A,B},{A,C}} even though its definition is limited to {A,B}. {{A,B},{A,C}} cannot exist without {A.B}.
You just described something existing inside of something except you are somehow equating A,B as A,C while not realizing they are by definition not the same thing.
By that definition, the word "created" defines a verb entirely confined to the meaning of making something appear out of entirely nothing, Since we don't even know if "entirely nothing" is even possible, that would potentially make it completely fictional and thus meaningless verb. I don't think many would agree.
Lol.. That is the claim though. That God created the universe and everything in it. Why are you arguing that one created the other at the same time it was inside the none existing portion if you are going to change your argument to we don't know if it is possible. The set {{A,B}{A,C}} would only exist if {A.B} and {A,C} were created outside it and merged somehow. in the end, we still have creation from the outside.
Exactly half of my point. In the (unpopular) scenario where the universe is permeable, the boundaries have meaning only in determining what is part of the universe, and things that aren't part of it do not all necessarily need to be defined by those boundaries. The other half is that, even in the scenario where the universe is a completely closed system, things can exist outside that enclosed system without interacting with it, however, if that completely closed system had an initial state (along some dimension, not necessarily limited to "time") then evidence as to the parameters of that initial state may still be evident from within the universe. Which is why we have so much chatter about such things as the CMBR assymetry and somewhat serious propositions about how to ascertain whether we are living in a simulation.
I hope you realize that you just explained something existing outside the universe creating the universe and in one instance, entering it.
Do I personally think we'll ever glean a proof or a disproof of any "creator" or creation-like event from available physical evidence? Probably not, and almost definitely not within my lifetime. However, from a logical standpoint, I see no proof that such a proof is impossible, and you've presented zero to back up your somewhat strange definition of words and logical constructs.
I guess I don't need to present proof as we are talking about the logic of it and you just presented all the logic needed to determine the creator was outside the creation when creating it.
There will likely never be universal proof of a creator unless the stories are real and there is a second coming and the earth is destroyed. But logically, if there is a creator that created the universe, it was done from the outside.
The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.
And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.
I don't know who told you that the UN was the government of the world but they are not. It exists in order to have avenues for diplomacy instead of wars and had treaties it administrates, but you are completely wrong in thinking the US needs or needed permission from the UN.
Also, I don't really care about what Kuwait promised or not. They weren't the aggressors, they were our friends and had been friendly with the US since it's beginning. Kuwait even allowed Jefferson to stage his operations and preparations to invade the controlling authority Tripoli when both were under the ottoman empire control.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't disagree with your statement, I just don't think it is right for a cop to stop someone because they weren't sure.
It seems to me that the cop should need some sort of positive notice or that they need to be sure you broke some law or ordinance in order for the police to use their police powers and detain you. Otherwise, they could be pulling you over in hopes that you did something wrong which is problematic with the entire constitutional rights thing and all.
So why I know what you say happens (I've always had long hair and was often pulled over because of it or because I was wearing a metal band t-shirt and the cops thought I was a druggie), I simply cannot see how even in a liberal version of a living document or a strict interpretation of the federal and even some state constitution, that this crap is allowed to happen. Just last summer, I saw a friends van pulled over and being searched. I called him because it seemed as if his kids were driving it (they are old enough). He came down and found out the cop never asked to search the van, just hand cuffed the kids (15 and 16) after pulling them over and started searching. When asked why he pulled them over, the cop claimed they made a left turn without signalling but there were no left turns on the route they were coming from and the kids said they never made a left. So the cop obviously made something up and thought because they were young he could get away with it. and outside of a couple question from my friend, he did.
Yes.. In short, you would have to be dumb or crazy to go up against something so stacked against you on the hopes that 12 people might see things your way instead of the way the media has fed society for the 5 months leading up to your day in court.
Unless you have a good lawyer who is saying we got this beat, you are dumb or crazy to go against those odds no matter how innocent you are.
Umm.. who was that and why didn't he get a fair trial complete with all the appeals and all every other criminal on death row gets?
Or are you simply embellishing the story a bit and those details will make it difficult to hold your statement to light?
I'm assuming you are talking about G.W. Bush. Here is another misdirected claim against him. People say he is racists because he didn't support hate crime legislation that was brought up after the dragging death of James Byrd in Texas. However, the fact of the matter was that Bush supported giving those responsible the death penalty which is somewhat already the most severe form of punishment our judicial system allows. He saw a hate crime spec as redundant and actual enforcement of existing law as the answer.
Well, lets not forget the glove that didn't fit.
I mean why would someone have a pair of gloves that didn't fit, spend the time and effort to put them on, then go kill someone and lose a glove in order for the cops to find and claim they were yours.
Actually, I know why but on a jury cooped up in a hotel who didn't have access to the internet, hindsight of every arm chair quarterback picking over the case with information not introduced in court, and all, it simply didn't make sense.
A jury in principle can ensure right from wrong. But the reality is that no one would ever consider what a jury might do in the months leading up to your trial when the prosecutor and the mom with a bug up her butt drags your name through the press as the perv and pedophile this law would claim you are.
So yes, a jury should be a save, but the cost of that save could be impassible. Imagine if you were a school teacher who took a pic of his girlfriend at the beech, you job would be almost lost and you would have to endure all sorts of humiliation and harassment just so a jury can say it isn't so. In the UK, after a series of reports on the news about pedophiles, I guess some locals torched a pediatrics office thinking they treated pedophiles. There is also a claim about a mob chasing a podiatrist thinking she was a pedophile or something.
Oprah is posting on slashdot?
Vageejay.
The only other time I have ever heard that word was when flipping through the channels on afternoon and Oprah was on talking about someone's Vageejay.
Sadly, just when I thought it might be a new Howard Stern type format for her show, I was wrong. Fortunately, she was taken off the air after being arrested at the airport. I guess someone lifted up her skirt and they found 150 pounds of crack.
No, the deal, according to the audit report was for NASA fuel rates for NASA missions and regular fuel rates for other flights not concerning or connected to the government. The audit found that a mistake or misunderstanding by the provider of the fuel caused all the fuel to be at NASA's rate.
And according to the audit, NASA always paid for some flights, they just had something along the order of over 200 flights at no cost to them also. The deal they had was actually fair for both parties in many respects and h211 or google depending on how you look at them, actually went above and beyond the deal some 200+ times.
Does the association to google make you cry or something? Are you afraid it will somehow lead to more graft or something when people notice the connection to other shell companies that google benefits from??
So I guess the question might be is who cares? Obviously not you- or you don't care enough to put a name close to your post so the dog can chase the rabbit down the hole. So you car just enough to mention something but not enough to be associated with that mentioning which makes me wonder why you even bothered.
I think they count as state employees but the school pays a fee or their costs or something. It's less then the rentacop fees you or I would have to pay if we wanted a cop to work security on the late shift or a special event or something. In my area, you can hire off duty cops to do security at just about anything as long as it is legal.
But I think it would/should depend a lot on how big the school is and if the campus is open to the public or not. If it is a walled garden, I have a problem too. But if it is a private school as in no state/federal funding and they pick and choose students but open for the public to use amenities like the library or meeting halls and so on, I don't see an issue. Well, as long as the university cops aren't enforcing school rules- which they shouldn't be doing in either case as a law is passed by legislature not some board. I don't know of any private school that is as large as a state university though. Most of them are likely smaller and more specialized I would assume.
There are a lot of unique things that happen at a school and there is a rather large population density that grows and shrinks periodically. If they didn't get their own force, the city would likely have to step up and provide it. If they are getting a lot of calls or showing up a lot, it just makes sense. And the force could be more specialized to deal with issues surrounding school life. I mean someone gets stopped and reaches in his pocket to grab a phone in order to record the stop. In the real world, so many cops might think they are going for a weapon and shoot where a cop at a school might know what they are up to.
Well, from the article summery anyways, the bank is allowed to collect and keep personal information and the charity not only was not supposed to do so, failed to implement any auditing to ensure they were in compliance with the laws concerning personal information.
I think that right there, failing to even bother checking to see if they were in compliance, is what might have drove the fine up.
There is already precedence for this and it is somewhat simple to follow. Almost every college campus has it's own cops that are stationed on campus for the sole benefit of the campus and the college pays for the costs (some campuses have their own police force with the same powers as regular cops by law). Most medical centers of decent size and emergency room/hospitals have the same. The local hospital here has 5 officers working it (covering 3 shifts) and it is actually 4 or 5 blocks from the main police department.
What happens is that they patrol primarily the area they are in charge of- be it a college campus of hospital or whatever. They go on assists when needed (even off campus), will follow a fleeing suspect off campus if necessary, and so on. If a call comes in to 9/11, unless it is an assist (meaning something that requires a large police presence or everyone else is occupied), they won't go unless the call came from their area.
Think of it like a substation or precinct but on a smaller scale. The cop is a cop city wide, but they have their territory they stay in unless needed elsewhere for some reason.
That's because in the police academy and law school, they spell it the "just us" system instead of the Justice system.
It doesn't appear to be. It seems that it is a complete misunderstanding by the fuel company. From the audit,
"We found that a misunderstanding between Ames and DLA-Energy personnel rather than intentional misconduct led to H211 enjoying the discounted fuel rate for flights that had no NASA-related mission. From September 2007 until August 2013, H211 purchased fuel at Moffett from DLA-Energy either directly or through NASA for both its personal (non-NASA related) flights and NASA science flights at a rate intended only for government agencies and their contractors. Even though Ames officials accurately reported to DLA-Energy the nature of the Centerâ(TM)s agreement with H211, DLA-Energy misunderstood that H211 was drawing fuel for both private and NASA-related missions."
The audit also says that the h211 company has flown over 200 missions for NASA at no cost to NASA and as a result of the misunderstanding, H211 paid between 3.3 and 5.3 million less than market rate for fuel in the time frame because of it. It's a pretty interesting read once you start into it.
The fuel wasn't surplus. But the problem was altogether different.
An audit was conducted concerning Google's aircraft being stored that the ames facility. It turns out that they lease a hangar from NASA as market rates but also allow their aircraft to be used by NASA for Earth Science projects.
http://oig.nasa.gov/Special-Re...
In the course of this, the supplier of fuel for the site charges a market rate for everyone but NASA who gets charged a cost plus rate. NASA had them fueling the aircraft (which is more then just their jet) on the cost plus rate for the NASA projects but an oversight happened and they ended up being charged cost plus for everything including private non-government flights. The audit doesn't place blame or malice in it and writes it off as a misunderstanding. The letter in the article is confirmation that NASA was doing it, didn't have anything in place to detect it, cannot go back and fix it, but have that all taken care of now and the separate rates will be applied appropriately.
It's deeper then that. The fuel at costs was supposed to be only for fuel used on the NASA missions the planes do. All the fuel for private flights were supposed to be purchased under a different account for market rates.
This letter is in response to an internal audit that disclosed all the fuel was being purchased at costs instead of separating them like they were supposed to be.
http://oig.nasa.gov/Special-Re...
Correction, it appears that NASA was using their planes for "earth science" projects and was authorized to sell the fuel for the government work. What happened is that for some reason, all the fuel for the planes were purchased using this government discount so fuel for private flights not related to the government was purchased at the discounts.
Its a little deeper then this. This letter is confirmation on an audit by some inspector. NASA leases several of the google jets for earth science related tasks and NASA was only allowed to sell them fuel to the extent of covering those missions.
What ended up happening is that H2 11 purchased fuel for private flights under the same account that had nothing to do with NASA or the government so the selling of that fuel was against the contract (possible law too). So the audit came out, someone asked about it, NASA confirmed it and said they didn't have any way to address it previously but do now.
http://oig.nasa.gov/Special-Re...
Now I didn't read the audit enough to see whether or not anyone explicitly made it clear that only fuel used for government services could be purchased under the contract. I'm going to assume it was an oversight or misunderstanding and the proper accounts weren't changed over when fueling. Pilots probably don't give one rats ass about the cost of fuel for someone else's aircraft they have to fly. They certainly wouldn't be privileged to the contracts NASA and H2 11 were part of and likely just gave the account name or number or charge card they were given for the government usages. I used to work for a company that operated heavy equipment and off road use fuel was tax free also. We had two fuel cards for when they were on site, one for the trucks and one for the equipment to keep tax credits separate and drivers often used the same card for everything. When asked why they thought they had a second fuel card for, they said in case they needed to get fuel at a stop the first one wasn't accepted at. Either management lacked something, the drivers and operators lacked something, or the fact that they could fuel the equipment in the yard and rarely needed to get more on site (outside what was brought with them), allowed them to forget what they were told once a long time ago.
My guess would be that it was just there and they needed fuel one day. When H2-11 discovered how much cheaper it was, they probably needed fuel quite often. It's not uncommon for airports to supply fuel services for crafts not controlled explicitly for them.
It takes a clueless person to not see the insight in noticing that when Russia invades it's neighboring country, then it says you should watch for Russia invading it's neighboring countries- which happens to be the US via Alaska when talking about national security. What insights into US national security would Russia invading a neighboring country give you other than we need to watch our border with Russia? and yes, you can essentially say we have a border with Russia and we patrolled it pretty heavily during the cold war.
Now I know why you posted AC.
Can you see Russia from your bedroom window?
Sorry it took so long to get back, work took me out of town for a bit.
No, you can still be outraged over the actions of another country.You do not have to accept anything you do not like. The Geneva convention has some provisions in it describing when it is legitimate to go to war but the UN doesn't give or rescind permission making it legal and illegal.
No, I'm not wrong. You simply got lost somewhere. A resolution autorizing an action or broad set of actions does not in any way constitute the UN giving orders. It is saying we will not object. Korea on the other hand was a UN action and they gave specific orders like take this area or launch this offensive. Granted, the specifics on how that happened was left to the generals in charge but the UN took a direct part in coordination and orchestrating it.
Again, no. First, there are multiple bodies that deal with treaties. Some of them are under the UN control but most of them are not. I think WIPO has the most active treaties at the moment. But Russia as part of UN charter, has a permanent seat with Veto power at the UN. That means they cannot be booted (neither can the US, France, UK, or China) for any reason and they retain veto power over any actions the UN might try including security resolutions and sanctions. Now UN charter does say stuff in chapter 1 article 2 that makes an invasion for regime change illegal under UN charter but there are no penalties for it. Nothing is prescribed by charter or treaty concerning it. It's no different then your mom telling me to go to my room and me telling her to kiss off. The UN could vote on allowing other countries to address the problem or even take military action themselves like with Korea but with Russia's veto, nothing can be done.
But it gets even worse for your case. Any court can claim anything is illegal, it's a matter of jurisdiction and enforcement. I just held a kangaro court that said you posting was illegal and a violation under international law. Of course they also didn't say there was any penalties and even if there was, they do not have jurisdiction or the ability to enforce any of them. About all they can do is get outraged and have someone claim that outrage is superfluous.
And to make it even more obnoxious, Russia didn't invade Crimea, they went to the assistance of the sitting leader who was unconstitutionally and illegally deposed by a mob of people using force and the threat of force. So forget about what you think you know and watch the spin. Russia said the Viktor Yanukovych is still the only valid president and blames the uprising on influences from the west. "People are being persecuted for language and political reasons.". So not only is Russia helping the legitimate elected president who was unconstitutionally removed from under the threat of violence, they are the humanitarians in the mix. All of that seems to be completely in line with UN charter and international law and it seems to provide valid excuses for all the so called violations in the process. Interestingly, the talking heads in the west want to ingore and dismiss that without mention.
That is the accepted principle whether you want to believe it or not. But I guess arguing with an AC is pointless. I mean the bible itself tells a different story as early as genesis and cane and able.
No, that would be misprison of a felony. What it means is that if your security camera picked up someone being raped and killed, i can link to the footage if it became availible somehow. There might be harrasment if i did though
No, crimea has been part of the ukraine since 1991. But even if it was as you believe, there still wouldn't be a precedance.
As for the rest of your dribble, it doesn't seem to match reality or matter much in the context of these posts.
You just described something existing inside of something except you are somehow equating A,B as A,C while not realizing they are by definition not the same thing.
Lol.. That is the claim though. That God created the universe and everything in it. Why are you arguing that one created the other at the same time it was inside the none existing portion if you are going to change your argument to we don't know if it is possible. The set {{A,B}{A,C}} would only exist if {A.B} and {A,C} were created outside it and merged somehow. in the end, we still have creation from the outside.
I hope you realize that you just explained something existing outside the universe creating the universe and in one instance, entering it.
I guess I don't need to present proof as we are talking about the logic of it and you just presented all the logic needed to determine the creator was outside the creation when creating it.
There will likely never be universal proof of a creator unless the stories are real and there is a second coming and the earth is destroyed. But logically, if there is a creator that created the universe, it was done from the outside.
The US doesn't need authority from the UN to depose Iraq. Nowhere is it in the UN charter to give permission to depose any sitting government.
And the UN doesn't give orders for specific actions in war unless the action is a UN action. That hasn't happened since Korea and we are reminded often how big of a failure that was.
I don't know who told you that the UN was the government of the world but they are not. It exists in order to have avenues for diplomacy instead of wars and had treaties it administrates, but you are completely wrong in thinking the US needs or needed permission from the UN.
Also, I don't really care about what Kuwait promised or not. They weren't the aggressors, they were our friends and had been friendly with the US since it's beginning. Kuwait even allowed Jefferson to stage his operations and preparations to invade the controlling authority Tripoli when both were under the ottoman empire control.