I don't think so. The rates and services are generally known and regulated before you purchase them and the accounting is pretty accurate. It's not like you are going to be getting 60 volts instead of 120 or naphthalene instead of propane or natural gas.
Unless you are trying to say the utilities are generally over priced. Then I would agree.
This is more of a problem then just states. Most cities, the local police have jurisdiction, but they don't outside of the city so going to a scrap yard or pawn shop in the county or another city creates the same problem. The county sheriff us generally locked into just the county, so going into another county can recreate the same situation.
I ran into this once. I had a van broken into. I had to go to all the pawn shops outside of town in order to look for the laptops and other crap taken. The cops said they simply didn't have the jurisdiction or the man power to do it. I tried to get the sheriff to assist the local cops, but I guess there was a jurisdiction issue there too. The state police was the only law enforcement entity with clear jurisdiction across the state, but they do not deal with property crimes like that. It is literally idea for crooks to steal in the next county over and go back the other way a county in order to sell it.
Actually, it is not illegal to receive stolen goods. It is illegal to knowingly receive stolen goods. I could hijack a truck load of bubble gum and sell it at my corner store, you come in and buy a pack or two and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to you other then confiscate the gum. On the other hand, if I go in and steal it, then sell it to you around back for 1/4 the price, there is.
Also, copper it routinely recycled. When remodeling homes or buildings it is separated from the demolition and generally recycled and replaced with new. This is because you know the insulation and the condition of the copper is good on the new and you aren't installing under rated or potentially damaged wiring into the new addition. Most areas will not clear the electrical outlay if it uses old wiring from the project or another project near by. As soon as it is removed, it is typically not used again in most situation.
And yet they exist because voter ID laws are wrong.
There are scrap yards that don't really care of the scrap is stolen or not. They only care if it was stolen from them. Requiring ID or photos or forms filled out won't make much of a difference to them. I know of at least 3 scrap yards that will take a car without a title even (you can literally steal a car from the street and sell it for scrap). All you have to do is cut the motor out and put it in back and take the wheels off before scaling it and the law (in my neck of the woods) doesn't consider it a car any more. But the fine for taking a car without a title is only $200 so they will still make jack from the transaction. Just not as much as they could have.
Most of those laws only carry fines and other regulatory sentencing. However, it is easier to find a corporation guilty of a criminal act then it is a find a specific person within the corporation guilty of the act. This is because most laws actually require a men rea or state of mind in order to enter into the sentencing parts that include jail time.
Corporations are jailed all the time. They do not put a piece of paper in jail, the piece of paper doesn't act on it's own. It's the people within the construct of the piece of paper that actually acts and it is those who sit in jail. Sometimes the offense is to egregious that the corporations are disbanded as well as people being locked up.
Anyways, there are a lot of reason why ti's expensive. Mostly your ignorance on what it takes do do this work and keep a city running. I suggest you study civil engineering. You come up with a better way that works, you will be rich.
Lol.. I don't have to study civil engineering to ask the fucking question. How stupid is that- requiring someone to be an expert to ask a question is ridiculous. So you are saying that nothing, absolutely nothing can be done to lower the costs of digging a hole that was already dug once before and patching or replacing a pipe that was already laid in the hole at some point in time where all the engineering and studies were already done at one time. I say hogwash. Some thing could be done if they wanted to that could reduce the costs of maintaining the pipes.
because the latter way is already being done by companies all the time. I'm not sure why someone who clearly has some ignorant myopic view of how a city works would bother expressing an opinion based on nothing.
And I'm asking if that is the only way or the most effective way. We can drive the prices of everything through the roof all you want. All it does is make the poor poorer and negligently impacts the rich. I'm not sure someone as ignorant of how the fucking world works such as you should be pushing you idiotic views without answering the questions asked. If you have nothing of value to add, then please just shut the fuck up and allow those who do the opportunity to speak. Idiots like you are what is wrong with this world. It's why a minimum wage is never enough.
I didn't ignore those, I said they were unimportant to the vast majority of people and nothing significant to what they want. I also said those were the other reasons besides what I said that is why they will never be elected. They are even flawed and so biased that your ignorance is outshining everything associated.
The ban on gays in the military needed congressional action to remove, DADT was exactly the limit the pres could do on it and it was already done.
The law already says no court can hold a case against the telecoms or bush over the warrantless wiretaps so you need congressional action there too.
You also need congress to move pot from a schedule one drug to a schedule 3 drug.
The rest will likely be overruled by congress and stoped before it happened except for the with drawl of troops. And that would likely cause the impeachment and removal of any third party president who tried.
Powerless to do anything, but wouldn't have the chance because of how batty those ideas are in the first place. They are losers from the start.
I think you get exactly what you pay for with utilities. They are highly regulated. As for psychotics, I believe your more of the problem then the solution. Wages weren't the only thing mentioned. Lower wages might not even be needed as part of the solution. But keep deluding yourself into thinking it's everything.
I think a better thought experiment would be the city removing obstacles in the utility's way making it cheaper for them to repair the leaks. For instance, why does it cost 1.5 mil to dig a hole and patch a pipe? If it is labor, suspend the minimum and/or prevailing wage requirements on those specific projects, perhaps lax some of the training requirements for the portions of the job that doesn't involve safety sensitive operations. Don't require the entire pipeline to be upgraded and allow just the portions that are bad and leaking to be fixed. Perhaps pick up the tab on repaving the roadway or parking lots or whatever the pipeline runs under. Perhaps streamlining the permitting processes for identified leaks and so on.
There are basically two choices to use when changing the motivation to fix something. You can either make it cost more to leave it alone, or make the cost of the repairs less to actually fix. I'm not sure why lots of people think the previous should be the preferred way.
There is one thing that can defeat your claim and that is the ability to change your password. The passwords are not hard wired into the sites and any user at any time can change their password. So you give them a password, they do their thing, you change your password, and everything is as it should be.
Also, a court order is a warrant. A judge issues a warrant upon probable cause. This is what has happened here except the warrant is issues within a civil matter and not necessarily a criminal one (although criminal charges can come from sexual harassment suits). Nothing in this violates the Constitution.
Ah.. I see. I thought you were complaining that someone hearing your speech could get you in trouble when in reality, you are saying be careful where you make your speech because it can/will be used against you at some time.
They could, but they wouldn't need to. The judge could also throw the case out with prejudice meaning the plaintiff loses all ability to sue over the claim for non compliance with a court order he considered pertinent to some aspect of the case.
Anything you say always could and would be used against you. The only difference here is how many people hear you. But as a test of this, try standing in your living room and saying, "everybody down, I have a bomb, give me all your money". They go to something where more people can hear you like a bank and do the same.
You wouldn't need to get that convoluted. All you need to show is if the copyright violation had happened without a violation of the copyright, that the copyright owner would have gained something of value.
Suppose I went into my garage and a bicycle fairy had packed it full of bicycles. I decide to rent them out at $80 a pop for as long as you wanted to use them and didn't care about the condition they were returned in or if they were ever returned- you could rent a bike for the rest of your life and pass the rental down to your grandchildren. Now, if you take a bicycle without paying the rental fee, even though the bicycle fairy will replace it, am I not out $80 from your use of the bike? If you violate my copyright, am I not out at minimum what I would be owed for the use of the copyright? If you didn't rent the bicycle, I wouldn't have made more, but because you took it without paying the rental, I have made less. It is the same with copyright violations.
McCain wasn't elected president, the law has roots deeper then McCain anyways, and it was actively rejected by the republicans on a federal level before when it was put up against Hillary care in 1993. This is the first I hear it was supposed to be McCain's campaign agenda but it's no wonder why he lost that election big time. You have not brought anything of relevance to the discussion.
I think you are completely confused. Or at least confused enough to not make any sense at all in this.
lol.. no lying. That's just the defense anyone has to say, the trespasser has to prove otherwise. And no, I do not know of any law saying it is illegal to shoot someone else property when it is on your property as long as human life and regular gun safety laws are followed. There may be civil liability depending on the tort law involved, not no law against it.
I see crap like this brought up all the time and I'm wondering what in this world would make you think that a plan that has already been rejected would somehow be acceptable to republicans when a democrat brings it around again? I mean seriously, this entire "it was a republican plan" is meaningless as the republicans rejected it already; else you wouldn't need democrats trying to remake it and complaining that republicans should like it but do not.
Please, by all mean explain that to me. Suppose you hate lima beans and didn't want to eat it. Someone makes them and you reject them, are you supposed to all the sudden like them because someone else asked you to eat them? I simply do not understand this disconnect the democrats have with reality.
And you just listed all the other reasons no one would elect a third party president. Bravo, you get it.
Except you probably shouldn't use president as a title to stein, It is like closing your eyes and wishing you weren't an idiot and expecting it to be true when you opened them. It simply would never happen. People who think stuff like that is remotely important are so far in the minority that it wouldn't even be a significant enough count to list a percentage of the population.
You mean on earth? There has been people all around hating on the Jews for a long time. And you can thank the ottoman empire and the Brits for them being in this particular place.
Israel came to be known from the origins of the balfour proclamation. Palestine has always been a territory and never a state independent of any controlling authority above it.
The epic part would be where it appears Oprah's open and honest endorsement of a product appears to simply be a shill for something she couldn't even be bothered to use while shilling for it.
Oprah seems to have this cult following (less now that she isn't on regular TV) that trusts her words in ways that would make Paul Harvey appear like a used car salesman and they seem to do whatever she tells them. That is why Oprah's endorsement in and of itself is newsworthy- let alone why this seeming deceit is.
Look again when she says angle the camera more. it flies over the wooded area because it it right at the edge. shots were fired and they bring it back to the right where it then cam towards them and dropped into the road. It was over the gun club property which is probably why it was shot.
It looked like it was over the woods when it got shot. It took off and crashed from the road. But it was obvious it was over the woods when it was shot.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. The rates and services are generally known and regulated before you purchase them and the accounting is pretty accurate. It's not like you are going to be getting 60 volts instead of 120 or naphthalene instead of propane or natural gas.
Unless you are trying to say the utilities are generally over priced. Then I would agree.
This is more of a problem then just states. Most cities, the local police have jurisdiction, but they don't outside of the city so going to a scrap yard or pawn shop in the county or another city creates the same problem. The county sheriff us generally locked into just the county, so going into another county can recreate the same situation.
I ran into this once. I had a van broken into. I had to go to all the pawn shops outside of town in order to look for the laptops and other crap taken. The cops said they simply didn't have the jurisdiction or the man power to do it. I tried to get the sheriff to assist the local cops, but I guess there was a jurisdiction issue there too. The state police was the only law enforcement entity with clear jurisdiction across the state, but they do not deal with property crimes like that. It is literally idea for crooks to steal in the next county over and go back the other way a county in order to sell it.
Actually, it is not illegal to receive stolen goods. It is illegal to knowingly receive stolen goods. I could hijack a truck load of bubble gum and sell it at my corner store, you come in and buy a pack or two and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to you other then confiscate the gum. On the other hand, if I go in and steal it, then sell it to you around back for 1/4 the price, there is.
Also, copper it routinely recycled. When remodeling homes or buildings it is separated from the demolition and generally recycled and replaced with new. This is because you know the insulation and the condition of the copper is good on the new and you aren't installing under rated or potentially damaged wiring into the new addition. Most areas will not clear the electrical outlay if it uses old wiring from the project or another project near by. As soon as it is removed, it is typically not used again in most situation.
And yet they exist because voter ID laws are wrong.
There are scrap yards that don't really care of the scrap is stolen or not. They only care if it was stolen from them. Requiring ID or photos or forms filled out won't make much of a difference to them. I know of at least 3 scrap yards that will take a car without a title even (you can literally steal a car from the street and sell it for scrap). All you have to do is cut the motor out and put it in back and take the wheels off before scaling it and the law (in my neck of the woods) doesn't consider it a car any more. But the fine for taking a car without a title is only $200 so they will still make jack from the transaction. Just not as much as they could have.
Most of those laws only carry fines and other regulatory sentencing. However, it is easier to find a corporation guilty of a criminal act then it is a find a specific person within the corporation guilty of the act. This is because most laws actually require a men rea or state of mind in order to enter into the sentencing parts that include jail time.
Corporations are jailed all the time. They do not put a piece of paper in jail, the piece of paper doesn't act on it's own. It's the people within the construct of the piece of paper that actually acts and it is those who sit in jail. Sometimes the offense is to egregious that the corporations are disbanded as well as people being locked up.
Lol.. I don't have to study civil engineering to ask the fucking question. How stupid is that- requiring someone to be an expert to ask a question is ridiculous. So you are saying that nothing, absolutely nothing can be done to lower the costs of digging a hole that was already dug once before and patching or replacing a pipe that was already laid in the hole at some point in time where all the engineering and studies were already done at one time. I say hogwash. Some thing could be done if they wanted to that could reduce the costs of maintaining the pipes.
And I'm asking if that is the only way or the most effective way. We can drive the prices of everything through the roof all you want. All it does is make the poor poorer and negligently impacts the rich. I'm not sure someone as ignorant of how the fucking world works such as you should be pushing you idiotic views without answering the questions asked. If you have nothing of value to add, then please just shut the fuck up and allow those who do the opportunity to speak. Idiots like you are what is wrong with this world. It's why a minimum wage is never enough.
I didn't ignore those, I said they were unimportant to the vast majority of people and nothing significant to what they want. I also said those were the other reasons besides what I said that is why they will never be elected. They are even flawed and so biased that your ignorance is outshining everything associated.
The ban on gays in the military needed congressional action to remove, DADT was exactly the limit the pres could do on it and it was already done.
The law already says no court can hold a case against the telecoms or bush over the warrantless wiretaps so you need congressional action there too.
You also need congress to move pot from a schedule one drug to a schedule 3 drug.
The rest will likely be overruled by congress and stoped before it happened except for the with drawl of troops. And that would likely cause the impeachment and removal of any third party president who tried.
Powerless to do anything, but wouldn't have the chance because of how batty those ideas are in the first place. They are losers from the start.
I think you get exactly what you pay for with utilities. They are highly regulated. As for psychotics, I believe your more of the problem then the solution. Wages weren't the only thing mentioned. Lower wages might not even be needed as part of the solution. But keep deluding yourself into thinking it's everything.
I think a better thought experiment would be the city removing obstacles in the utility's way making it cheaper for them to repair the leaks. For instance, why does it cost 1.5 mil to dig a hole and patch a pipe? If it is labor, suspend the minimum and/or prevailing wage requirements on those specific projects, perhaps lax some of the training requirements for the portions of the job that doesn't involve safety sensitive operations. Don't require the entire pipeline to be upgraded and allow just the portions that are bad and leaking to be fixed. Perhaps pick up the tab on repaving the roadway or parking lots or whatever the pipeline runs under. Perhaps streamlining the permitting processes for identified leaks and so on.
There are basically two choices to use when changing the motivation to fix something. You can either make it cost more to leave it alone, or make the cost of the repairs less to actually fix. I'm not sure why lots of people think the previous should be the preferred way.
There is one thing that can defeat your claim and that is the ability to change your password. The passwords are not hard wired into the sites and any user at any time can change their password. So you give them a password, they do their thing, you change your password, and everything is as it should be.
Also, a court order is a warrant. A judge issues a warrant upon probable cause. This is what has happened here except the warrant is issues within a civil matter and not necessarily a criminal one (although criminal charges can come from sexual harassment suits). Nothing in this violates the Constitution.
Ah.. I see. I thought you were complaining that someone hearing your speech could get you in trouble when in reality, you are saying be careful where you make your speech because it can/will be used against you at some time.
They could, but they wouldn't need to. The judge could also throw the case out with prejudice meaning the plaintiff loses all ability to sue over the claim for non compliance with a court order he considered pertinent to some aspect of the case.
What part of the constitution does this violate? And do you know what a warrant is or how it is issue?
Anything you say always could and would be used against you. The only difference here is how many people hear you. But as a test of this, try standing in your living room and saying, "everybody down, I have a bomb, give me all your money". They go to something where more people can hear you like a bank and do the same.
You wouldn't need to get that convoluted. All you need to show is if the copyright violation had happened without a violation of the copyright, that the copyright owner would have gained something of value.
Suppose I went into my garage and a bicycle fairy had packed it full of bicycles. I decide to rent them out at $80 a pop for as long as you wanted to use them and didn't care about the condition they were returned in or if they were ever returned- you could rent a bike for the rest of your life and pass the rental down to your grandchildren. Now, if you take a bicycle without paying the rental fee, even though the bicycle fairy will replace it, am I not out $80 from your use of the bike? If you violate my copyright, am I not out at minimum what I would be owed for the use of the copyright? If you didn't rent the bicycle, I wouldn't have made more, but because you took it without paying the rental, I have made less. It is the same with copyright violations.
McCain wasn't elected president, the law has roots deeper then McCain anyways, and it was actively rejected by the republicans on a federal level before when it was put up against Hillary care in 1993. This is the first I hear it was supposed to be McCain's campaign agenda but it's no wonder why he lost that election big time. You have not brought anything of relevance to the discussion.
I think you are completely confused. Or at least confused enough to not make any sense at all in this.
lol.. no lying. That's just the defense anyone has to say, the trespasser has to prove otherwise. And no, I do not know of any law saying it is illegal to shoot someone else property when it is on your property as long as human life and regular gun safety laws are followed. There may be civil liability depending on the tort law involved, not no law against it.
I see crap like this brought up all the time and I'm wondering what in this world would make you think that a plan that has already been rejected would somehow be acceptable to republicans when a democrat brings it around again? I mean seriously, this entire "it was a republican plan" is meaningless as the republicans rejected it already; else you wouldn't need democrats trying to remake it and complaining that republicans should like it but do not.
Please, by all mean explain that to me. Suppose you hate lima beans and didn't want to eat it. Someone makes them and you reject them, are you supposed to all the sudden like them because someone else asked you to eat them? I simply do not understand this disconnect the democrats have with reality.
I don't know of any reason it wouldn't be legal. They were shooting, it got in the way, it got shot.
And you just listed all the other reasons no one would elect a third party president. Bravo, you get it.
Except you probably shouldn't use president as a title to stein, It is like closing your eyes and wishing you weren't an idiot and expecting it to be true when you opened them. It simply would never happen. People who think stuff like that is remotely important are so far in the minority that it wouldn't even be a significant enough count to list a percentage of the population.
You mean on earth? There has been people all around hating on the Jews for a long time. And you can thank the ottoman empire and the Brits for them being in this particular place.
Israel came to be known from the origins of the balfour proclamation. Palestine has always been a territory and never a state independent of any controlling authority above it.
The epic part would be where it appears Oprah's open and honest endorsement of a product appears to simply be a shill for something she couldn't even be bothered to use while shilling for it.
Oprah seems to have this cult following (less now that she isn't on regular TV) that trusts her words in ways that would make Paul Harvey appear like a used car salesman and they seem to do whatever she tells them. That is why Oprah's endorsement in and of itself is newsworthy- let alone why this seeming deceit is.
Look again when she says angle the camera more. it flies over the wooded area because it it right at the edge. shots were fired and they bring it back to the right where it then cam towards them and dropped into the road. It was over the gun club property which is probably why it was shot.
It looked like it was over the woods when it got shot. It took off and crashed from the road. But it was obvious it was over the woods when it was shot.